As streaming becomes the dominant way people consume TV, a shift toward programmatic buying is accelerating. The increasing availability of biddable inventory, combined with the flexibility that programmatic offers, is prompting some to question the necessity of a TV upfront that demands hefty ad dollar commitments.

It’s reasonable to speculate that a world where a few networks sell upward of 75% of their linear ad inventory for the upcoming year in just a few short weeks may not make long-term sense. However, advertisers will always negotiate commitments to exercise their spending leverage and ensure they aren’t shut out of inventory crucial to the success of their brands. 

That said, the methods used to achieve these goals via commitments are likely to evolve significantly from the TV markets of the recent past. If anything, the upfronts are poised to be revitalized thanks to the growth of programmatic technology.

In the “early days” of this fast-growing medium (i.e., just a few years ago), most marketers bought CTV in the same way as traditional TV — through direct deals. By last year, though, we saw the “early majority” of brands shift from direct I/O toward programmatic and this year we predict that the “late majority” will consolidate their CTV upfronts within a demand-side platform (DSP).

In fact, Advertiser Perceptions found that 69% of advertisers plan to utilize programmatic guaranteed and 56% plan to use private marketplace (PMP) buys in the next 12 months, compared to only 53% planning to use direct I/O. This shows us that TV buying behaviors are changing and mixed, hybrid buying methods are more popular than ever.

Buying TV directly or programmatically is only the first of many decisions buyers must make as they prepare their upfront strategy. Here are my predictions and how advertisers can capitalize on the growing shift toward programmatic.

1. Consolidate TV buys in a softer market: One main reason buyers want to participate in the upfront is to guarantee their share of coveted inventory. The challenge arises when this leads to a proliferation of direct deals that may target the same household too many times. 

One of the biggest advantages of programmatic campaigns with a DSP, specifically via PMPs, is that you can consolidate CTV buys into a unified buying method. This allows you to understand and manage reach and frequency holistically and reduce overlap between CTV and linear, as well as overlap between publishers to maximize reach. This saves advertisers money while making for a better customer experience.

2. Uplevel audience strategies in a converging landscape: As an industry, we like to bucket TV into “linear” and “CTV,” but it’s all just TV to the consumer. The challenge for advertisers is connecting the dots between both channel types to understand things like holistic reach and frequency and who is being exposed to your ads regardless of what viewers are watching or how they are accessing content on their TVs. 

With programmatic, these insights can be leveraged for advanced TV targeting that goes beyond basic demographic audiences. This starts with a foundation of diverse and holistic data, such as combining high-quality ACR data with set-top box data. This allows for a unified approach to TV. It also enables advertisers to reach their audiences more effectively by better understanding viewing behaviors and powering use cases, such as suppressing linear audiences on CTV to drive incremental reach. 

3. Aim for identity-based supply at scale: All of these strategies are only effective if you can actually reach the right audiences. This is why having a foundation of identity within an ad platform — which powers more precise reach — is critical.

While cookie deprecation may seem irrelevant to TV buyers, it sets the stage for other signal deprecations, such as IP addresses. A lack of an “identity spine” also makes connecting measurement between digital channels and inventory difficult. That’s why TV buyers will increasingly value future-proof TV activation backed by robust identity.

Despite initial reservations, the industry is witnessing a significant shift toward programmatic buying, with a hybrid model proving to be particularly effective. As this trend continues, advertisers who embrace these changes will likely find themselves better positioned to reach their desired audiences more effectively and precisely. 

The internet is one of America’s greatest success stories and is now an essential part of daily life for millions of people around the world. Through significant investment, innovation and the hard work of thousands of people building modern and innovative broadband networks, we’re close to making the internet accessible to all Americans — regardless of where they live. 

The digital divide is a persistent challenge, but it’s one Verizon Communications and the Communications Workers of America are committed to solving.

We believe the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is part of the solution. The ACP has made unprecedented progress towards connecting all Americans by helping to ensure more than 23 million households can afford high-quality, high-speed internet. By providing a $30 per month discount on service, the ACP makes it possible for millions to obtain jobs, complete homework, connect with family, access life-saving information and conduct all the other business we do online every day. Americans from all walks of life — from urban and rural inhabitants to students, older adults and veterans — rely on the ACP to obtain and sustain their internet connection. 

With $42.5 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, network buildout is making broadband access a reality for people in the most unserved and underserved areas across the country. But building networks is only part of the equation. To make the most of the significant investment in BEAD and to support good jobs, maintain service and assist customers, we must ensure that high-speed broadband is affordable for everyone. 

Unfortunately, funding for the ACP is about to run out. Despite its success, April is the last month the program will provide full reimbursements that lower the cost of broadband for families in need. The Federal Communications Commission has joined with the White House and many others, including Verizon and CWA, to urge Congress to extend the program and to make sure that everyone — regardless of income — stays connected. Notwithstanding bipartisan efforts, Congress has yet to act. New applications are no longer being accepted and the program is winding down.

That is why renewing funding for the ACP should be an immediate congressional priority.

At a time when we are making tremendous progress on deploying broadband infrastructure to the places that need it most, Congress must act swiftly to make sure this valuable program continues delivering on our goal to close the digital divide. 

Allowing the ACP to end would be a significant blow to achieving this goal and it would diminish the impact of our ongoing network investment. It is not too late to save the ACP, but we need action now. Congress must renew ACP funding immediately.

“Lost at sea” is how the National Association of Broadcasters recently characterized the Federal Communications Commission in deliberating a proposal for priority application review and processing for stations that met certain local programming thresholds. The NAB emphasized that local journalism and programming can be best saved in the digital age by abandoning its obsolete, Depression-era broadcast-ownership rules.

That theme also echoed at this week’s NAB Show. Curtis LeGeyt, NAB’s president and CEO, explained that a top priority was the education of policymakers (i.e., the FCC and Congress) on the pronounced marketplace imbalance in the fight for advertising dollars and program content between local broadcasters and titans like Google, X, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, TikTok, etc. None of these giants is handicapped by the FCC’s ownership restrictions. That needs to change.

In his NAB Show main-stage appearance, LeGeyt added that he works daily “to make sure that local stations across the country have the resources that they need to go and deliver on [their] mission. And that means giving our broadcasters a little bit more scale, the ability to compete with big tech.”

I am the sole owner of seven television stations and co-owner of the Baltimore Sun newspaper. I agree with LeGeyt and NAB. Unless the FCC wants the broadcast industry to follow the newspaper industry over the cliff, its rules should recognize that radio and television stations compete for ad and program dollars not just with other local stations, but with gigantic content and distribution platforms with capital resources hundreds of times larger than the largest broadcast operations. As LeGeyt noted, “Washington, D.C., pretends that [broadcasters] only compete against one another for advertising dollars and for audience.” 

As the extensive record developed over the last 20 years in the FCC’s Quadrennial Regulatory Review process shows, the digital disruption of the media marketplace has fundamentally altered competition for audiences and advertisers. Television broadcasters compete with innumerable online and multichannel outlets. But the FCC’s rules impede local stations’ ability to compete successfully by effectively serving viewers. They are like the horse and buggy in the age of motor vehicles.

The broadcast industry’s ability to function in the “public interest, convenience and necessity” (Section 309 of the Communications Act) requires economic viability. Ownership restrictions uniquely saddling local broadcast stations impair “economic viability” and the public interest.

Eliminating the FCC’s anachronistic ownership restrictions will stimulate the development and production of new content more efficiently, technological upgrades, a reduction in redundancy and a streamlining of operations to slash costs and achieve economies of scale. Local broadcasters will then have the means to survive temporary downturns in the economy.

At present, giant ad platforms and tech companies that compete directly with radio and TV broadcasters for audiences dominate the market. They own leading audio and video-streaming services (e.g., Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV Plus, Spotify, YouTube Music) further providing a competitive advantage. They control the dominant consumer technologies (e.g., smartphones, smart speakers, connected-TV devices, etc.) used by hundreds of millions of Americans to access digital content. 

The FCC should write an epitaph to its backward-looking broadcast ownership rules. How can it ignore what all the world can see and daily experience in the marketplace for audiences and programming content in the digital age?

Leading a local media company is not for the faint of heart. Everywhere you look, there is change — technology, regulation, audiences, partners, employees. In these rough seas, we have a light to help guide us through the storm. It is a focus on mission.

Plenty of businesses have written mission statements, but few have the kind of North Star shared by a media company practicing journalism. 

The E.W. Scripps Co. mission statement says, “We do well by doing good — informing, entertaining and engaging the audiences we serve.” Every business decision we make will be better if we keep that mission in mind.

No matter how your company puts it into words your purpose is likely to make your communities better, keep people informed, and hold the powerful accountable. Democracy itself depends on our ability to meet the task. Still, we often lose sight of our purpose in the hustle and bustle.

Also Read: Local News Close-Up: Nashville Newsrooms Catch Their Breath

Clarifying our mission creates a touchstone for better business decisions. At Scripps, we have been evaluating resources at our stations, prioritizing field journalism and increasing our investment in newsgathering. Does that mean we set lofty goals and do not worry about the business fundamentals? The opposite is true. Because we must have margin for the mission, our focus on the bottom line should be relentless. Both cuts and investments can be guided by our “why.” Our station in Nashville invests in investigative journalism. Our chief investigative reporter, Phil Williams, has been honored in recent months with the DuPont Award, the John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism and the Lifetime Achievement Award from RTDNA. John Oliver featured him on Last Week Tonight. Phil has reported on everything from lead in drinking water to sexual assault on school buses, but his specialty is government accountability and abuses of power. He recently received an oversized thank you card, signed by local leaders, grateful that he revealed a  candidate’s ties to white supremacists. Both the honors and card confirm that we are helping our neighbors and being true to our mission.

Live Event: Attend The Business of TV News Event in Washington, D.C.

Another key area of our mission-focused investment is literacy for children. Nearly all employees give to our “If You Give a Child a Book …” campaign. The Scripps Howard Fund and our viewers make contributions and the Nashville Predators match our donations. We have given more than 50,000 books to students in high-need schools in Tennessee. It is the first time many of them have owned a book.

In a less traditional example of business decisions guided by mission, WTVF commissioned a downtown Nashville mural called “Embrace.” It features imagery designed to encourage caring and community. NewsChannel 5 describes the mural as a gift to the city we love, and the city has responded. Everyone from ordinary citizens to celebrities has taken and posted photos of the mural. 

Clarity of mission takes more than a mural. It requires living by your touchstones daily and making sure your team does the same. This is a key strategy to attract and maintain a talented team when talent sometimes seems scarce. If you ask people early in their media careers how they chose their path, most will

say they wanted to make a difference. Team members, tenured and new, likely came in the door full of enthusiasm to do work that matters. When we stop pointing out their impact and reminding them of mission, their fire can die out. Station leaders have the power to rekindle that fire, making decisions that support it, and clarifying each person’s role in the team’s highest calling. 

Making It Better 

In Nashville, leaders talk about mission and impact during the hiring process, and keep it front and center in staff meetings and coaching conversations. Not coincidentally, the station’s rate of turnover is low with remarkable tenure in key positions.

No person or business gets it right all the time, but we share a basic desire to leave an imprint, to know we have made things better. When we align our strategies and teams around the importance of our contributions, we will tap into energy that improves our business performance, elevates our work and gives us strength. Nashville’s June Carter Cash was a famously strong woman. When people asked how she was doing, she often replied, “I’m just trying to matter.”

Same here, June. Same here. 

As the sun rises on 2024, a lot of light is shining on the future of sports and its relationship with broadcast television. For fans, things seem to be getting more complicated. Many games are only available through subscription, be it cable, satellite or a streamer. For the first time ever, most of the country had to pay to watch an NFL playoff game in January.

The immediate risk of going behind paywalls might not initially seem huge for some teams. Devoted fans are likely to follow their teams wherever they are — and the beat goes on … for now.

But where do the new fans come from? How does someone become a fan of something they can’t sample for free? What happens to franchises that are still in the process of establishing rabid fan bases?

And as of right now, streaming isn’t working for everyone — and that is going to impact the casual fan. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the NFL playoff game I mentioned earlier — Kansas City Chiefs vs. Miami Dolphins, streaming on Peacock — was the lowest-rated wild-card playoff game dating back to 1991-92.

Built by Broadcast

It’s important to remember the NFL wasn’t always the juggernaut it is now. There was a time it was firmly behind baseball and the product was — for quite a while — considered to be inferior to college football. The legend of the NFL’s growth dates to December 28, 1958, when Johnny Unitas led the Baltimore Colts to the NFL championship in a nationally televised game that changed the future of the league. A fan base — and the NFL’s legacy — was truly born that day. Less than a decade later, the Super Bowl existed and the marriage of broadcast TV to professional football was forged.  

Could that have happened behind a paywall? 

There are reasons for optimism for broadcast sports. Our sister Gray Television station in Phoenix is now showing Phoenix Suns and Mercury games over the air across the state. Here in Atlanta, we’re proud to be showing 10 Hawks games across our stations in early 2024 — returning the NBA team to WPCH, where it aired over 30 years ago. 

The reaction on social media when we announced this over the holidays was tremendous: “Awesome News!!” “That’s Outstanding.” “People should always be able to see some of their local teams’ games on TV, period.” “Awesome. About time.” 

It’s not just viewers who are excited. Our sales team is talking to new advertisers who want to be a part of live sports.

Live and Local

We’ve also launched the Peachtree Sports Network with the goal of sharing live sports all across Georgia — from pro basketball and hockey to lacrosse and the Ultimate Frisbee Association, as well as high school sports. The idea is to give fans the games they want but also to grow more fans — people who can watch a game for free, then watch another game, then another …

I grew up in a household of casual sports fans just interested enough to know who won each game in some sports, but certainly not watching nightly. Would I have become the crazy sports fan I am if I hadn’t watched football, baseball, basketball and hockey for free on broadcast television as a kid? Televised games on Saturday and Sunday afternoons and evenings were what did it.

At their best, sports bring the people in this country together. We root for our teams, buy the gear, read about them, watch and listen to shows that talk about them. In many cases, we even pay the taxes that help fund stadiums and arenas. All of that became possible once fans didn’t actually have to attend the games to be part of the action. From listening to reports of the World Series over the telegraph to the evolution into radio and television, mass broadcast created mass fan bases. 

Now, suddenly, we’re at a crossroads. Are sports going to remain something that everyone can be part of, or will they become private games played in publicly financed buildings available only to people willing to swipe their credit card?

The promise of rights fees may be alluring, but teams that go behind paywalls are  putting a ceiling on how big their businesses can be. In the end, no matter what someone is selling, if people don’t know what the product is, they’re just not going to buy it. 

Over the past decade, digital advertising has undergone a remarkable transformation, fundamentally altering how brands engage with their audiences. This change has been primarily driven by the advent of self-service advertising platforms, with giants like Google and Facebook leading the way. 

These platforms have democratized advertising, enabling businesses of all sizes to target audiences with unprecedented accuracy and measure the return on their advertising spend in an incredibly precise way. Now, as we enter 2024, a similar revolution is unfolding in the realm of connected TV (CTV), raising the question: Will this be the year when the TV industry reaches 100,000 advertisers for self-service TV advertising campaigns?

Rise of Self-Service Advertising

Self-service advertising platforms emerged as game-changers for digital marketing, beginning with paid search pioneer GoTo.com in 1998. These platforms offered a level of accessibility and precision that traditional advertising methods couldn't match. Any business — small or large — could set up a campaign in minutes and reach valuable audiences without the hefty budgets typically associated with traditional media buys. Metrics and analytics provided clear insights into ad performance against driving outcomes, ensuring that advertisers could understand and demonstrate the effectiveness and return on investment of their ad spend. This level of control and insight is now extending into the CTV space.

CTV has seen explosive growth over the past several years, with more households choosing streaming services over traditional cable TV. The shift has created a new avenue for advertisers to reach audiences where they are increasingly spending their time.

2024: A Turning Point?

As we progress into 2024, several factors suggest that this could be a pivotal year for self-service CTV advertising. Among them:

Advances in Measurement and Targeting: CTV platforms are rapidly developing their measurement and targeting capabilities. Advertisers can now leverage detailed viewer data to tailor their messages more effectively than traditional TV advertising allows. This precision, akin to what digital advertisers are accustomed to, makes CTV an increasingly attractive option.

Structural Changes in Digital Advertising: The digital ad landscape is undergoing significant shifts, especially this year’s planned phase-out of third-party tracking cookies. With increasing concerns over privacy and data usage, platforms are making changes that impact the effectiveness of traditional digital ads. These changes are pushing advertisers to explore new avenues, with CTV standing out as a promising alternative.

Increased Accessibility: The growth of self-service platforms in the CTV space is lowering the entry barrier for smaller advertisers. Similar to what was witnessed with digital advertising, these platforms allow businesses of all sizes to create and manage CTV campaigns with ease, opening up a market that was previously dominated by large advertisers with substantial budgets.

Diversification of Ad Spend: As more advertisers become aware of the benefits of CTV, including its high engagement and growing audience base, there’s a natural shift of ad spend towards this medium. This diversification is crucial in an era where multichannel advertising is becoming more of a necessity than a choice for brands seeking to maximize their reach and impact.

The Future Is the Past

Back in the early days of paid search in 1998, advertisers had to learn an entirely new way to do business. They had to figure out how to choose relevant keywords, write titles and descriptions for each keyword, upload 1000s of keywords, figure out how to bid, and measure ROI at a keyword-by-keyword level. As simple as this all seems now, it was really difficult back then. But as tools emerged and advertisers inched up the learning curve, a thriving roughly $200 billion-plus marketplace evolved, supported by millions of advertisers. The same thing happened in social.

The democratization of TV advertising is in full swing, driven by new tools and technologies that are analogous to the early days of paid search: self-serve TV buying, ROI measurement, auto-campaign optimization tech, etc. But for most of the 9 million paid search and social advertisers, TV is a new channel. As they embrace the new tools — like self-serve platforms — that democratize TV advertising, we are likely to see a huge surge of search and social advertisers adopting outcome-based TV.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission heard an earful from a range of industry leaders at a hearing on the agency’s proposed “Click-to-Cancel” regulations, which aim to impose wide-ranging regulations to govern how subscription-based businesses must interact with their customers. The most compelling objection came from the cable industry, which pointed out — quite accurately — that its sign-up and cancellation practices are already closely regulated by a separate federal agency. 

Congress first granted the Federal Communications Commission a mandate to regulate the cable industry nearly four decades ago. In the years since, Congress has repeatedly reinforced that authority — including via 1992’s Cable and Television Consumer Act and 2019’s Television Viewer Protection Act (TVPA) — to ensure the FCC has the power to regulate precisely the kind of business practices on which the FTC has now set its sights. 

For example, under FCC rules, cable operators must maintain a customer service line 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and answer calls within 30 seconds. Cable operators must disclose the total monthly charge for service to consumers before entering a contract — and explicitly note the amount of any promotional pricing and when it expires. Within 24 hours of entering the contract, the provider must send this same information by email or online link and give consumers a 24-hour window to then cancel with no penalties. The TVPA also requires electronic bills to include information about charges and fees, the termination date of any promotional discount and the termination date of the contract. 

I’ve seen firsthand, as former chief of the FCC’s Cable Services Bureau, how the commission’s broad regulatory oversight in these areas effectively empowers it to protect consumers and investigate and punish any bad actors. Decades of close oversight has built within the FCC an in-depth, nuanced comprehension of the sector and the specific protections its customers need.  

By contrast, the FTC’s envisioned rule paints all industries with the same broad brush. A sweeping, “one-size-fits-all” proposal that sees no difference between cable TV service and scammy subscription businesses will cause confusion and may result in unintended negative consequences for consumers. 

Undoubtedly, there is need in other industries for the FTC’s proposed rule. Cast in the most favorable light, perhaps the FTC’s efforts could be viewed as that agency’s effort to do for the rest of the digital economy what Congress and the FCC have already done and continue to do for cable customers; that is, ensuring consumers have full disclosure of all the key facts — prices, terms and conditions — they need to make informed choices, and then making sure they can easily reach their providers if they want to modify service. Assuming that’s the FTC’s goal, it should take the logical step to exempt the cable industry from its proposed rules, rather than just overlapping the FCC’s efforts in ways that could lead to innumerable headaches and costs for both providers and their customers. 

The FTC’s proposal, for example, would likely lead to cable customers receiving less-relevant information and fewer options compared to the FCC’s current regime. In fact, the proposed rule strictly forbids any business from even offering a departing customer a better price or special offer without first asking and receiving their explicit permission to extend such an offer. Intentionally restricting a company’s ability to offer customers discounts or other benefits is hardly an intuitive approach to consumer protection. A key component of making informed decisions is not only access to information before signing up, but also access to information before canceling. 

The FTC’s simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach is particularly ill-suited for complex offerings like cable service, for which consumers can generally personalize their choices from a menu of bundled services, channel packages and speed tiers. Subscribers often opt for discounted packages with specific terms, and if a customer cancels early or cancels only one service in the package, the discount may be revoked. Restricting a provider’s ability to clearly explain those consequences could lead to subscribers unintentionally canceling desired services. 

The FCC’s long-established approach to protecting cable consumers is informed through decades of oversight and expertise and rooted in core principles of transparency, disclosure and consumer choice. The FTC should direct its efforts to those industries not already subject to comprehensive, industry-specific consumer protections. 

Social media lit up Jo Koy with devastating attacks about his hosting duties at the Golden Globe Awards on January 7. 

But something funny happened on the way to the dustbin of Golden Globes history. Ratings had a dead-cat bounce, rising to 9.4 million viewers — a 50% jump from 2023’s record low of 6.3 million viewers.

Whether more people tuned in from social media’s lambasting of Koy’s unfortunate performance or whether they were drawn to the quality of the nominees (Barbie, Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon), and attendees (Taylor Swift, Greta Gerwig, Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro), is difficult to determine.

Linear TV is still quite a powerful advertising platform for live sports and tentpole events such as awards shows. The reasons are simple: ratings, cultural relevance via social media, and the ripple effect for days or even months after the fact in the form of user-generated shareable content (tweets, posts, hashtags and memes). 

Each year, Q1 is brings the linear-TV ad trifecta: the Grammy Awards (February 4), Super Bowl LVIII (February 11), and the Oscars (March 10). Perhaps the Golden Globes should be included to make Q1 a “quadfecta?” 

In 2020, the Grammy Awards drew about 19 million viewers, which fell to under 10 million in 2021 and 2022 before rising in 2023 to 12.5 million. And the bored Ben Affleck meme is still memorable a year later. 

The Super Bowl never fails to disappoint as a ratings draw with roughly 100 million viewers each year. While ratings for the other two shows fluctuate wildly, all are amplified by social media commentary.

When our clients ran TV Super Bowl commercials, they experienced increased engagement and a significantly higher response rate on their websites and apps.

Despite the high out-of-pocket cost, the substantial volume of web traffic more than offset the cost, resulting in a lower cost-per-visit for the Super Bowl. The down-funnel impact on new customers and conversions from the Super Bowl was similarly strong and efficient, with the greatest impact realized within the first three days and measurable for approximately 25 days post-spot.

Pregame spots have proven to generate a strong response for numerous brands. Placing ads in tentpole programming elevates awareness among consumers and adds legitimacy and credibility. This is important because there has been a steady decrease in ratings for primetime programming each year, showing a decline of 13.83% from 2022 to 2023.

Clever creative in the right placement drives conversations that happen outside of live broadcasts; what used to be called the “water-cooler” effect — next-day conversations in the workplace — can become immortal online.

The “Breaking Bad” Super Bowl spot for PopCorners last year was widely shared and discussed on social media, even though it aired only once on TV. However many millions the brand spent to run the 60-second spot helped to ensure it reached a substantial audience beyond the telecast and generated a lot of positive buzz for the brand.

Super Bowl LVII in 2023 drew the most viewers in the past five years with 115 million in total, up 16% compared to 2019. Naturally, eyeballs vary depending on the quarter in which an ad appears and whether the game is lopsided.

Like the Grammys, Academy Awards viewership has declined significantly, down 37% in 2023 versus 2019. Yet the Oscars broadcast was one of only seven non-NFL sports programs in the top 100 most-watched TV broadcasts of 2023, making it a still-valuable buy. It remains to be seen whether the current beef between New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and scheduled Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel has legs that can stretch to March. 

To maximize impact, brands might consider leveraging strategic partnerships with popular platforms such as YouTube AdBlitz to amplify brand creative and achieve even more mass reach. The coupling generated five times the views of the Super Bowl game itself and provided opportunities to reach incremental consumers, aged 18-49 who didn’t see an ad on TV. The most successful YouTube AdBlitz ads during the 2023 Super Bowl garnered anywhere from 11 million to a staggering 140 million views, showcasing the immense reach of the platform. 

Considering the magnitude of pop-culture influence from a tentpole linear TV event through shareable content and the data derived from sentiments, conversation and interactivity, buying ads on these shows is practically a guarantee for return on ad spend. 

Think of it this way: Despite dismal material and the near-universal panning of his performance, the Taylor Swift death-stare meme generated from one of Koy’s jokes about the singer is worth its viralness in gold. At least now everyone knows who he is.

The fallout from the linear TV apocalypse is starting to materialize.

Consumers are frustrated by a fragmented landscape, TV networks and applications are scrambling to add value and advertisers have been stuck between investing in the waning linear TV space and shifting budgets to streaming.

While television goes through growing pains, how can advertisers win? We must understand the past before we jump into the future.

How We Got Here

In the heyday of linear, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) — the cable operators — appealed to consumers by expanding content choice. To scale, they offered “programming bundles” — service tiers that included multiple cable networks at a relatively reasonable cost. The MVPDs paid the networks low monthly license fees per subscriber. 

Over time, consumer-advocacy groups demanded the offering of networks on an “a la carte” basis. The MVPDs and programmers, citing complex outcomes (e.g., increased consumer pricing), successfully rebuked these demands and the bundle, it seemed, was here to stay. 

And along came streaming. 

Tech companies and consumers latched onto the promise of “what you want when you want it” content. They promised content control. Netflix and free ad-supported TV (FAST) channels launched, while traditional TV networks built strategies to adapt, netting Disney Plus, Max, et al.

Digital technology seemed to win the streaming wars. U.S. cable subscriptions, which topped  out at 97 million households in 2016 (plus about 20 million satellite subscriptions), have precipitously declined and are expected to bottom out at 43 million. To maintain revenue, content providers and MVPDs must increase subscription pricing for those who remain.

These trends have resulted in a doom loop — the more linear players increase prices, the more subscribers leave cable with those departing subs forced to redirect their entertainment dollars to a la carte studio streaming services — whose prices are going to increase to offset the losses in cable distribution and advertising revenue, as well as cover production costs from the streaming wars. 

So the MVPDs and content providers were right: a la carte does not work for consumers!

Predictably, to maintain or boost subscribers while individual app costs increase, the streaming services are bundling. Showtime is now included with Paramount Plus. Disney Plus, Hulu and ESPN Plus offer package deals. We may even see applications license their exclusive content elsewhere (imagine Ahsoka on Paramount Plus after a six-month run on Disney Plus), reinventing the syndication market.

How We Get Out of Here

While digital technology helped create this doom loop for consumers, linear players and streaming platforms, it creates solutions for advertisers.

Connected TV (CTV) ads, which are delivered on a one-to-one basis via internet protocol and digital technology, provide more comprehensive — and prospectively valuable — audience insights than traditional linear. By marrying first-party data to other interesting, privacy-compliant data sets, advertisers can better define and reach their target audiences. 

For example, let’s say Beyoncé drops a “surprise” album. In the peak days of linear TV, one ad announcing the album could reach millions on, say, a live Seinfeld episode. That’s a lot of prospective buyers. However, via streaming ads on CTV, she could use today’s digital advertising tools to ensure her ad reaches her target audience that has a greater likelihood to purchase.

Measurement, too, offers richer insights into consumer absorption of a campaign, such as incremental lift across all channels in which the user was exposed to the message, or attribution for the album download on a phone, after seeing the ad on CTV.

Importantly, advertisers must consider the CTV ad placements. Quality is not consistent across the thousands of CTV apps and some digital pathways allow for fraud. Advertisers should use the same discretion in selecting CTV partners as they exercised in selecting linear partners, and encourage their technology partners to remove intermediaries who do not add value. 

The right technology platform partners — those with strong data-matching capabilities, quality inventory access and comprehensive advanced reporting — can help bring deduplicated scale across the various CTV platforms and applications. 

While the streaming wars continue, fragmenting consumer eyeballs, marketers can nonetheless use the latest digital advertising tools and win in television’s evolving landscape.

Pick your favorite hyperbolic sports metaphor and the business of sports is probably achieving it. In an era marked by massive sports streaming deals and surging fan viewership, market forecasts predict sports rights will soon top $30 billion. 

But the growing pains are real, especially for frustrated fans who endure whiplash trying to figure out which platform on a given night is streaming the game they want to see. 

There is a growing opportunity to simplify how fans find and view games — for instance, a sports search engine with every streaming option and quick links to the platforms or providers hosting the desired game, or league apps that become first-stop destinations for quickly finding and connecting to events on the right platforms. 

Until recent technical advancements, strategies like these would not have been possible. That’s because the nature of sporting events and business of sports content rights creates unique challenges in logistics, distribution and consumption. 

Ultimately, the goal is to increase the value of subscriptions by making it easier for fans to watch more games and become accustomed to a more consistent viewing experience, regardless of the particular rights holder. 

As leagues and partners acknowledge streaming growing pains, efforts are underway to streamline fan access to games. 

Complexity Breeds Confusion

Streaming has transformed sports viewing, giving fans a diverse range of platforms and access, but this age of abundance is not without pitfalls. A survey by Deloitte highlighted a staggering 50% of fans miss out on games due to platform unavailability. It is no secret the maze of apps and confusion over which company is serving up which game has simply become too complex.

Leagues have multiple teams spanning dozens of regions, often playing simultaneously. Different leagues and sports organizations manage streaming and viewing rights differently and there are sometimes blackout rules in effect for local games. Sports fans also struggle to determine which streaming service hosts a particular game on a specific date and the lack of centralized access to content hinders the ability to watch games live. Add in a requirement to juggle several subscriptions, passwords and apps, and it’s no wonder fans end up missing so much of the content they actually want to see. 

Some connected TV platforms have attempted to unify search but there has been no enduring solution to these challenges. Now, leagues are standing up to the challenge. 

League Apps Can Lead the Way

It makes perfect sense for league apps to be the place fans start every time they want to watch a game. However, integrating users from external streaming services into a league's application is fraught with challenges because such external services each introduce proprietary technical stacks, often using different technologies not designed to integrate with external sources. This puts the burden on engineering teams to manage updates, changes and technical requirements from each of these external platforms.

Leagues usually have to decide between hiring technical experts to handle multiple custom integrations or standardizing the integration process with industry standards like SAML and OAuth. 

A major U.S. sports league recently adopted the integration standardization process. They faced a familiar scenario where content deals made games available through more than a half-dozen partners. Logins needed to be supported through these third-party credentials with viewing taking place in the league’s digital properties or third-party apps. The league recognized that integrating all these diverse platforms into a unified technology stack required an extraordinary amount of technical expertise. It preferred its team of engineers to remain focused on the user experience. 

Sports streaming will only grow more complicated. As fragmentation intensifies, standardized integration processes can be a beacon for leagues and rightsholders eager to enhance viewer engagement and give fans the experience they deserve.  

By aligning with industry standards, sports leagues not only pave the way for revenue growth but also promise fans a seamless, immersive viewing experience.

The proving grounds for the recent evolution of cloud-based broadcast operations has been free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST), a linear-TV streaming format that shares many advantages with internet-connected, NextGen TV broadcasting. One of these advantages includes a one-to-one advertising model that enables the targeting of advertisements to specific users and the collection of extensive, real-time data and analytics on how concurrent users are consuming a channel’s content — all without relying on panel-based reporting from market measurement firms.
Today, many cloud-based workflows originally designed for FAST-style streaming are now being considered for traditional over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting. This is applicable not only to those already invested in ATSC 3.0 but to any legacy OTA distributor.

This convergence of FAST and OTA workflows is an exciting development that gives broadcasters an excellent opportunity to experiment with delivering diverse content over the airwaves. “Convergence” is truly the operative word here: As workflows unite for cloud-based and traditional broadcast methods, content production and distribution will become more streamlined as well. Thanks to the maturity of the cloud within the FAST ecosystem, channels that were once exclusive to digital platforms can now be adapted for OTA broadcasting. And soon, the distinctions between cable offerings, OTA content and over-the-top services will become increasingly blurred. As this transformation unfolds, broadcasters will find it easier to build multiple channels, experiment with new offerings, manage content and ads across FAST and OTA channels, and personalize and localize content.

Benefit 1: Building Multiple Channels Is Significantly Easier

Cloud technology has empowered broadcasters to manage channels and incorporate sophisticated elements more easily and affordably. Thanks to the cloud, there’s little need for dedicated hardware in broadcasters’ setups. And when it comes to managing a channel, all related tasks can now be conducted in a Web browser, where content, graphics and advertisements can be built into a channel instantaneously and contribute to a more comprehensive viewer experience.

As cloud-based workflows for FAST have shown, broadcasters don’t need an entire control room’s worth of software and hardware to incorporate sophisticated elements, including graphics. J-bars, L-bars and other similar elements can be easily constructed in HTML, offering greater flexibility and resulting in a visually appealing presentation that matches the sophistication of cable TV programming. Essentially, broadcasters can construct a website over their channel and can automate various elements such as tickers, clocks, stock quotes, sports scores, weather information or any structured data source they have access to. This capability might have been beyond the reach of many TV stations lacking the necessary hardware or software for overlaying such elements onto their channels. However, by envisioning the channel as a website, the transition to NextGen TV-grade viewership becomes much more feasible. And the best part is that it’s straightforward and cost-effective.

Benefit 2: Experimentation Incurs Fewer Costs and Less Risk

Moving broadcasting operations to the cloud significantly reduces upfront costs, providing broadcasters with the flexibility to experiment with, launch and manage multiple channels at a time — even pop-up channels. Traditionally, broadcasters would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront in building a traditional broadcast facility. Moving operations to the cloud often entails adopting a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, which largely shifts accounting practices from capital expenditures to operational expenditures. As a result, establishing multiple channels in the cloud is far more cost-effective. There isn’t a massive initial expenditure; instead, broadcasters can spread the cost over the duration of a contract with a SaaS provider. This approach allows broadcasters to be more experimental and lowers the barrier to launching multiple channels, empowering them to introduce new offerings with minimal investment and very few operational demands.

If broadcasters want to test a channel in a specific market, there’s no need for extensive deliberation due to high costs for equipment, and it doesn’t require a significant financial commitment to get it off the ground. This cloud approach enables experimentation and trying out various ideas without significant upfront planning and costs.

Additionally, the threshold for launching pop-up channels around single live events is currently quite low, given the ease of the process. If broadcasters have the inbound signal, they can efficiently broadcast these events in a cost-effective manner, initiating and terminating these channels without requiring a significant financial investment or extensive internal deliberation. If broadcasters want to establish a channel dedicated exclusively to local high school football, they can launch that channel in the cloud within a few days, run it for a limited time during the football season, and even distribute the feed to other interested platforms. Similarly, thematic channels related to various occasions or special promotions don’t necessitate a substantial investment, allowing for more creativity and experimentation. Whether it’s a Halloween channel, Christmas channel or one dedicated to an awards show or sports event that’s only needed for a few days or weeks, the cloud offers a creative and cost-efficient advantage.

Benefit 3: Ads and Content From FAST Can Be Copied to OTA

In the cloud, broadcasters can also create FAST and OTA versions of their channels and potentially increasing their revenue streams. One of the key divisions between FAST and OTA broadcasting is in the advertising environment. FAST operates in a one-to-one advertising model, where a marker triggers a call to an ad server, leading to a real-time auction for that specific user’s attention. In contrast, OTA is a one-to-many model where broadcasters need to program broadcast advertising deliberately, scheduling different videos between ad markers. But whether displaying a slate in FAST or playing an actual ad in OTA, the process of scheduling remains quite similar.  Taken further, broadcasters can also create a variation of a specific channel for both FAST and OTA, especially on digital subnets. 

By working with a prominent cloud SaaS partner, broadcasters with separate FAST and OTA versions of their channels — complete with different ad environments — can easily connect to an external ad server for broadcast. Here, the server will inform the SaaS partner about which ads to include and when. From there, the SaaS partner can converge the workflows, distributing the FAST version to established platforms using an IP-based stream and, for OTA, distribute the other version to stations via an HLS, SRT, or Zixi stream. Both channels require a specific IP version of their stream, so for the cloud SaaS provider, it’s just another digital endpoint, making the process both seamless and automated. By running the channel as either FAST or OTA depending on its intended market, content would discover a whole new revenue stream for broadcasters, significantly increasing immediate ROI.

Benefit 4: Content Becomes Far More Personal and Localized

Finally, cloud technology allows broadcasters to transform their operations into a cost-efficient and more customized 24/7 linear cable-style service. Thanks to the cloud’s ease of building a channel, opportunities for experimentation and convergent workflows between FAST and OTA, broadcasters can create an entirely new business model. In other words, they can effectively enhance the value of the scheduled content between live local newscasts, which typically serve as the cornerstone of local TV. And in doing so, they can not only avoid spending money on licensing content but also provide greater value to their customers.

Instead of investing in licensing national shows to fill the gaps between newscasts or overnight, broadcasters can use cloud-based content that offers more value to their audience and costs almost nothing. This approach allows them to maintain a local focus, which adds value for viewers. A weather channel might want different graphics layers for various parts of the country, which can be accomplished in the cloud. Similarly, a national news channel may want to incorporate localized segments, where a significant portion of the hour-long national news broadcast is filled intermittently with brief two-minute segments tailored to specific regions. By leveraging the cloud, it’s quite cost-effective to create these subfeed variants. There’s no need for numerous playout engines to support these channels, making these previously expensive considerations more viable and practical when done in the cloud.

Hesitations towards implementing the cloud as the primary playout system will vary among different broadcasters, even those that have already adopted offsite production. However, thanks to the boom in FAST over the last few years, cloud workflows have evolved significantly — far past the point of supporting digital subchannels to fully building and distributing network-affiliated primary OTA channels. The barrier to entry is low, even for those who have not transitioned to NextGen TV. By participating in the cloud-based convergence of FAST and OTA workflows, broadcasters can significantly change their internal operations, discover far more lucrative revenue streams and remain the beloved cornerstone of their local viewers.

“Hang up the phone and come by my office now so we can chat.” Whenever I heard those words in that familiar German-inflected low register, I knew that it was time for a quick ride down the elevator at The Museum of Television & Radio in New York, then a brisk walk from there on 52nd Street to meet Henry Kissinger a few blocks away at his Park Avenue office.

Dr. Kissinger was a close friend of the museum’s founder, William S. Paley, the legendary chairman and CEO of CBS. He was an original member of its board of trustees, and remained involved in that capacity until his recent death at 100 years old. Kissinger was not just another name on the illustrious roster that graced our letterhead, either;  after all, he didn’t need to be there to burnish his resume.

Quite surprisingly, during my tenure there, he was unusually engaged, always available to me whenever I called with a specific issue where he could open some doors or serve as a valued sounding board. But my short telephone calls usually led to an invitation to drop by for more extended in-person conversations. I took advantage of this valuable face time whenever I had the opportunity to do so.

What I soon realized was that Dr. Kissinger found in me a kindred spirit who could talk endlessly about our mutual passion — television. He had a long history of mingling in the same social circles as television’s most prominent celebrities, of course.  Almost by osmosis, Dr. Kissinger soon became a media celebrity in his own right, so he fit right in with them. Women’s Wear Daily dubbed him “Washington’s Greatest Swinger” in 1971, and the following year, he was the choice for “the man I would most like to go out on a date with” in a Playboy Club Bunnies poll.

But our television talk was not about the glamour of Dynasty or Charlie’s Angels. Instead, we discussed how powerful and essential the medium of television was to his vision of global diplomacy. Kissinger, unlike all of his predecessors as Secretary of State (think John Foster Dulles or Christian Herter) understood that television imagery is an essential instrument to be used strategically in statecraft.

The historic visit of President Richard Nixon to China in February 1972 was an Emmy-worthy miniseries in itself, beginning with Nixon’s surprise live television announcement that he had sent Kissinger there in advance to lay the groundwork for this historic opening of U.S. relations with the world’s most populous communist country. The flickering satellite images of Nixon being greeted at the tarmac by Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, or walking the Great Wall in the bitter cold, or having tea with chairman Mao Zedong, remain burnished in our collective memories and now in our history books. Nixon rightly called this “the week that changed the world.” If this show was in prime time, the closing credits surely would have noted, “Henry Kissinger, executive producer.”

Amid the now-raging debate about Kissinger’s legacy in foreign policy, ranging from “genius” to “war criminal,” I think his undeniable impact as the first TV diplomat is worth noting as well. It is difficult to imagine how any geopolitical crisis today could be managed without thinking deeply, as Henry Kissinger did, about how television can be used to shape global perceptions, then morph into reality itself.

Through our spur-of-the moment talks, I understood why the man who loved power naturally loved television, too. With Henry Kissinger’s passing, the modern age of TV diplomacy has lost its first and most enduring star.

A few weeks ago, Netflix shipped out its last DVDs, retiring the company’s iconic red envelopes and marking the end of one era — and the full embrace of another. It’s the latest in an ocean of data points showing how streaming has taken audiences by storm, surpassing cable as the most popular way to find and watch video in America. 

I’ve had a front-row seat to streaming’s rise — during almost a decade’s worth of service as one of President Barack Obama’s appointees to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, before that, 11 years on the Public Service Commission back home in my beloved South Carolina. And now I’m excited to put that experience to work in my new role advising the Streaming Innovation Alliance, which advocates for policies that support diversity, value, affordability, and choice in video streaming.

The Alliance’s core mission is to help people understand why audiences have overwhelmingly embraced these services. 

Some of the answers are found in our new poll, reporting that 73% of registered voters view streaming favorably, with even higher numbers for Black, Hispanic, millennial and Gen Z audiences. When asked why, voters cite the diversity and variety of program options, the convenience of “anytime/anywhere” viewing and the great value streaming offers with huge program libraries.

Digging deeper, one thing that stands out is how meaningful it is for historically marginalized and underserved communities to have dedicated services focused on their interests and needs. Alliance members like AfroLand TV, For Us By Us Network, Vault Access and Vix are reaching audiences in ways that were unavailable before streaming. And their success is bringing high-skill, high-wage creative and production jobs to new communities and redefining the very idea of “Hollywood” in the process.

So, when policymakers consider new regulatory proposals, one big question they need to ask is how those ideas would impact the small, diverse and independent groundbreakers we need to keep this progress going. 

Independent services featuring less general audience programming and relying on a wider array of business models don’t have much room to maneuver. Tax and fee assessments, restrictions on programming choice or other ill-fitting regulations can literally make business unsustainable overnight or at a minimum drive up subscriber costs on the very underserved communities that can often least afford it.

Audiences understand these risks intuitively. Our new poll shows two-thirds of voters worry specifically about the impact new rules and regulations could have on small and independent streamers. Overall, about three-quarters of those polled think streaming services should be regulated the same or less than they are today.

That’s why I urge my former colleagues at the FCC to think twice about the decade-old idea of classifying streaming services under the rules for cable and broadcast TV. These rules include “must carry” and “retransmission consent” requirements created in an era when most households had only a handful of broadcast channels, a single cable company and a video rental shop as their home viewing options. They simply don’t fit the diverse, innovative, thriving world of modern video streaming. 

To be fair, a decade ago, that wasn’t so clear. In the early days of streaming, we were right to turn over every rock looking for ways to push innovation forward. Consumers were craving more choice and new competition in the video market, and I supported asking whether treating certain streamers as cable and satellite providers would deliver those consumer benefits.

We received volumes of public comments from businesses, consumer groups, and regular citizens. We built a diverse record, analyzed all the input, and … chose to let streaming develop without those old regulations. Well, 10 years later, it turns out that streaming services didn’t need those old rules to bring new and meaningful stories, opportunities, and options to life for consumers. The streaming industry’s groundbreaking storytellers and engineers, not FCC regulations, are delivering those benefits to the market by investing bravely and embracing new technology.  

Streaming is taking American households and Hollywood to new places and pushing the landscape of our culture forward. Now it’s up to us to acknowledge and embrace this progress, and move on from outdated policy ideas just like we’ve moved on from those iconic red envelopes.

I see you, marketers. I do. “Attention metrics” are all over the place these days, and you are likely fielding a ton of questions about whether or not they matter to your brand. I’m also positive you are getting dozens of emails with links to articles about them. I see you. 

While conversations around attention metrics might grab your (ahem) attention, whether or not a consumer has “paid attention” to your ad does not define your campaign’s effectiveness. What’s more, in an environment that has seen significant investment such metrics shouldn’t be your main focus when measuring performance in connected TV (CTV). 

The latest article I read about these metrics references a few of the ways attention is being measured and some of the sentiment around the data collection methodology, including biometric, emotional and cognitive data. If you put privacy concerns and general “ick” factors aside, these panels are small and unreliable, so devoting ad spend to them would be a gamble to say the least. 

The same article I linked to above talks about dwell, scroll speed, cursor locations and completion rates. For CTV, all of those data signals, except for completion rates, are completely irrelevant. Why? There’s no mouse, no trackwheel, no trackpad. 

In large part, viewability is only measurable in VPAID tags, which are not supported in CTV. Additionally, there is a lot of fragmentation in CTV, which leads to a scenario known as ghost boxing — or streaming over one HDMI input with autoplay enabled while the user is viewing video via a different HDMI input. So what’s a savvy marketer to do?

Make Your Ads Work for You, Not Just Your Target Audience: Interactive ads provide viewers with opportunities to engage. If viewers are engaging with their remotes in your creative, you can be assured they are paying attention. This engagement can be created as an opportunity for a consumer to learn more about a product/service, and convert. They also open up measurement opportunities for creatives. And, worth noting, these formats provide more accurate measurement and less controversial creepiness. 

As an example, some formats calculate a metric that is recorded as time earned. Other formats can calculate remote inputs, such as moving through a carousel overlay, giving you interaction data on the creative. 

Another potential solution would be derived metrics, or combining multiple measurable metrics such as volume, completion or percentage completion, along with ACR data, to “score” attention. 

No Mouse, No Click — Think About the Scan and Response: Scan rates and response rates to online outcomes are measurable in CTV, which is why you see a growing number of QR codes on your screen. Think about what a QR code requires viewers to do: pull up their camera app, scan it and click on the link. The action is not accidental, it’s intentional follow-through on the consumer’s part. It’s attention and engagement — and it has the potential to drive some serious success. Take Planters’ Super Bowl LVII commercial, for example, which featured a comedy roast of Mr. Peanut along with a QR code for viewers to scan to watch the full-length roast. The QR code drove a conversion rate of 70% — meaning 70% of viewers saw the QR code, scanned it, and took some form of action. Consumers have made it clear that the CTV experience is no longer a passive medium. Take action on the formats that will invite them to do the same.

Too VAST & Too Furious: Video Ad Serving Template 4.0 was released by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) in January 2016 (and updated regularly since then). This matters because VAST 4.0 natively supports the inclusion of viewability and verification partners. If marketers are viewing attention metrics as a proxy for viewability, then this feels like creating a problem after we already know the solution. In my view, part of the rise of attention can be attributed to the fact that viewability isn’t readily available for CTV and the industry is creating new metrics to replace existing ones. If marketers believe that viewable means seen, then the industry should be pushing for the wider adoption of VAST 4.0. 

Another point of view is that “attention” metrics are being promoted by those who want to highlight the poor attention scores of banner ads and other online advertising. This is forcing an apples-to-oranges comparison, given that CTV ads appear on the largest screen, at the highest resolution, over the full screen and with the highest frame rate of full-motion sight and sound — something a banner ad or other online ad could almost never accomplish natively. 

Attention metrics are most useful when comparing between mediums rather than within them, especially for CTV. An online banner ad that covers a small amount of on-screen real estate and can be scrolled past with no conscious observation by the viewer has an entirely different payload than a CTV ad that fills a larger screen for 30 seconds. Assuming that almost all CTV gets 3,000 attention points (30 seconds times 100% of the screen), it’s not overly valuable to track within CTV. Then, compare the impact of that impression with low-quality, likely invisible and fast-scrolling online banner ads that retail at a far lower CPM, and banner adds will never compete. 

Take a Data-Driven Approach: Combining exposure/impression data with ACR or HDMI viewership data or device-setting feeds (such as volume) will give you a larger panel to build greater confidence in the measurement of something “squishy” like attention. 

So, marketers, I get it. In a market focused on performance and outcomes within a favored-yet-fragmented ecosystem, times are certainly precarious. It’s easy to fall into the jargon-filled conversations surrounding attention as the answer to viewability. But thankfully, with the proper processes in place, there are a myriad of opportunities to measure the effectiveness of your campaigns — and they will actually drive more engagement and success overall.

Quality content is only one of many factors that determine success in today’s competitive FAST connected-TV (CTV) market. Overall viewer experience includes everything from fast load times and easy navigation to content selection to well-timed and well-placed advertising.  

For large media companies, the content creators are often also the owners of the distribution platforms. Therefore, they’re responsible for not only creating great content but for also creating a great viewer experience in the CTV landscape. The stickiness of the application program interface (API), discoverability tools and ad loads are all important factors in reducing churn and increasing content view time. 

Once dominated by streaming services like Hulu and Peacock, free ad-supported television (FAST) is a growing factor competing for viewers looking for more variety without a subscription fee, growing faster than apps with a subscription fee. Comscore reports that FAST viewership grew 17% from 2021-23, compared to 9% for non-FAST apps. 

What’s more, companies like Amazon, Charter Communications and Roku are at various stages of building their own TV sets to own more of the viewer experience and capture a higher percentage of revenue, competing with companies like Google, Samsung and LG.

When so many media companies are vying for viewers and advertising dollars, it’s important to create experiences that attract and retain attention. Media companies need to be equally alluring to viewers and advertisers with smarter uses of data and AI and new creative formats. 

Unlocking CTV’s Data/AI Potential

One obvious benefit of CTV is that as a digital channel, the experience can be personalized using targeted content recommendations as well as targeted ads. Generation Z likes YouTube advertising because it’s super-relevant. Infillion found that more than 60% of consumers would share personal data to get more relevant ads on CTV. Advertisers want to be able to run targeted ads on CTV the way they do on other digital channels. 

Media companies have an opportunity to work much more closely with advertisers to unlock the potential of data-driven experiences for viewers. A study by Truthset found most CTV data being sold to advertisers is flawed.  Industry leaders are working to link advertisers directly with publishers to share quality data more directly. Media companies can participate in the joint industry committee’s initiative to create a streaming data set between advertisers and media companies and be at the forefront of the data infrastructure that will drive the future of CTV. Being data-first is critical for knowing as much as possible about viewers and for being able to give advertisers as many levers as possible to reach those viewers effectively.

Pair this initiative with data-driven content curation, and media companies suddenly have a much stickier experience for their viewers. Netflix pioneered the CTV content recommendation algorithm, and they test different ways of suggesting content across the viewing experience. YouTube also has data-driven content suggestions using its own search data. Competitive media companies need to get smart about their own approach to keeping viewers interested.

AI can also help media companies move quickly. In addition to algorithms and analytics that help advertisers reach audiences, AI can also help with content and creative development. CTV companies can use generative AI to help advertisers design creative with self-service tools, make many versions of an ad, or alter creative to match better with the content on the show. 

CTV Offers Space To Innovate

CTV provides media companies with a lot of room to experiment. Apps can incorporate everything from commerce to social media to interactive gaming to appeal to their audience. The secret is to test and learn what works quickly to evolve ahead of the pack.

Media companies should test as many new viewing experiences as possible to see what viewers and advertisers like best. Perhaps people want alternatives to typical in-stream commercials, or they want interactivity or more relevance.

Brands like Lexus use virtual product placement that allows advertisers to insert products and signage directly into content, which gives advertisers a more contextual opportunity to reach viewers and doesn’t interrupt viewing. Walmart works with Roku to create shoppable content with prepopulated payment and shipping information to make the process as seamless as possible for the viewer. And Hershey worked with LG Ads to advertise directly on the home screen with interactive display ads. 

Media companies can use these tools to start incorporating more experiential elements that viewers like, especially the most digitally engaged generation of all, Gen Z. Premium CTV may be mostly movies and long-form content today, but there’s no reason why media companies won’t incorporate tricks from YouTube and social media to include short form, user generated, interactive and commerce into their apps in the near future.

With an approach that uses data and AI and embraces experimental content and advertising, media companies can compete more effectively as giants like Google and Amazon pour billions into their own offerings and viewers get more apps to choose from every day. Content companies that lean into these innovations when supporting quality content on their platforms will have a greater chance of success and will hold consumers’ attention more consistently, delivering what the consumers want most in the end, which is great quality in a great viewing environment.

For decades, advertisers loved linear television because it was a “mass reach” vehicle, with the ability to drive exposure with tens of millions of households during weekly tune-in events like Seinfeld, American Idol and Survivor. Now, those tune-in events primarily consist of sports and are nowhere near as big, besides the Super Bowl.

With broadcast and cable falling below 50% of total TV viewership this year, the entire industry is shifting focus to streaming. And as viewing behavior changes, advertising strategy must change with it.

As audiences splinter off from the traditional channels of the broadcast and cable era into multiple streaming environments and formats, how do advertisers reach digital audiences at scale?

Streaming Is Splintering

Netflix paved the way for the streaming revolution with its ad-free streaming service, which created a wake filled by an array of ad-supported business models. The resulting FAST services, like Pluto TV and Tubi, have grown rapidly with 50 million monthly active users and $1 billion in yearly revenue, something even leading industry analysts didn’t see coming.

What is more, historical SVOD players like Netflix are launching ad-supported tiers and even broadcasters have adapted by creating their own streaming platforms (hello Peacock, Paramount Plus, etc).

Broadcasters, advertisers and the industry at large are now battling both cord-cutting and the overall fragmentation of streaming applications available. To combat this issue, the entire industry is taking a page from the digital advertising playbook which, after all, is more reflective of the future of TV. Among the many powerful weapons in the digital advertising arsenal is the ability to offer precision-targeted audience reach extension.

Reach Beyond Boundaries

Reach extension, simply defined, is the ability to find more of a desired audience across all media. It allows media companies to offer advertisers the ability to reach viewers outside of owned inventory by identifying targeted users and extending the ability to reach them via other channels, platforms and environments.

Offering reach extension to TV advertisers is a powerful value proposition, especially for advertisers with access to a wealth of first-party data. For instance, advertisers can take first-party audience segments — like an existing customer list — and find those same people outside of a single media property. Alternatively, advertisers can extend a demographic segment they want to target (say auto buyers) from one streaming property to the rest of CTV.

Put into practice, this approach also extends way beyond the traditional TV stakeholders. A retail media network like Target’s Roundel can take its Red Card loyalty-program customers and reach them across a collection of premium media properties. A digital property like DoorDash can reach audiences beyond their mobile app by targeting people who have ordered from Chipotle in the last 30 days within streaming channels.

At a time when everyone is vying for eyeballs and attention, it’s impossible to achieve true scale within the confines of any single streaming service, but using that service as a starting point to reach that audience wherever they may live is a far greater opportunity. Not only does this generate more revenue for media companies, but it also makes the initial ad buy more attractive and productive for the advertiser.

While viewers may be moving away from traditional TV broadcast, premium publishers still hold the keys to digital audiences at scale — and the visionaries recognize the need to launch reach extension initiatives. The time to enter this game is now, where the future of TV advertising will be shaped by those willing to adapt and extend beyond their boundaries.

By now, the smart TV revolution is well underway and advertisers across the board have recognized that viewer behavior has changed dramatically.

Some of these changes have manifested as challenges to advertisers. One change is the fact that many viewers are streaming TV in premium, ad-free environments. Another is that even among viewers using platforms with ads, they often jump between services, resulting in a fragmented landscape that makes targeting and frequency difficult to achieve. 

But other changes have emerged as solutions to these challenges, top among them is the ascension of the smart TV home screen as the center of the streaming TV experience. 

Savvy advertisers recognize that the home screen is the one place where they can reach all viewers regardless of content or platform choice. The question many are asking today is, how? 

It’s a valid question, but the answers won’t be found looking at what’s worked in the past. Instead, advertisers need to really think differently and pivot their strategy, budgets and content choices to today’s CTV environment. 

Opportunity

First, let’s examine just how different the smart TV home screen is as an advertising vehicle. The home screen offers a different kind of reach, engagement and measurement potential than what TV ad buyers typically expect from a traditional 15-second or 30-second video ad. That means home-screen ad opportunities need to be evaluated differently. 

Let’s start with reach. Many home screen visitors are hard-to-reach viewers who go right to an ad-free environment that brands miss with standard CTV or linear ad buys. The home screen is the only place where brands can reach these viewers as they begin their streaming journey. 

Then there’s engagement. The home screen is, by design, a lean-in experience. It’s the new channel surfing, an active process where viewers are at their most engaged and focused on the screen itself. That’s much different than the passive lean-back posture taken once they start streaming. 

And finally, we have measurement, the ability for the home screen provider to more granularly measure not only reach and awareness but also lower-funnel key performance indicators (KPIs) like sales and even store visits for a level of custom reporting that can better validate and optimize campaigns. 

Taken together, the home screen offers the scale of linear with the efficiency of digital with no wasted impressions. But just because the home screen is on the TV doesn’t mean we should treat it like a traditional TV ad. 

Content and Creative

Ask any brand how they’d like to advertise on the smart TV home screen and the first answer you’ll get is a streaming video ad similar to the kind you’d see between show programming breaks. 

But one must be very careful about how ads work in the home screen environment. Video ads in programming are interruptive by nature. They have to be. Watching TV is a lean-back experience. You need interruptive ads to get attention. You need frequency to ensure the message gets across.

But the home screen is different. Viewers on the home screen are far more engaged. It’s a lean-in experience. That requires a different kind of advertising. Interrupting the content discovery experience with a video ad is not the best experience, and could very easily backfire. 

For media companies advertising programming it’s pretty straightforward — feature a title in one of many featured or curated programming themes and let the viewer click to watch. But for general-market brands, it takes a bit more creativity.  

This creates an unprecedented opportunity to build brand affinity by helping viewers find what they want, presenting it in a way that creates a better user experience, and in some cases even contributing to the creation of the content at the start. These solutions build not only awareness, but goodwill when brands are seen as aiding the discovery experience and not hindering it.

Brands can sponsor a specific program, or a collection of content, or even create their own branded content experience offered to viewers strategically alongside well-timed calendar milestones.

These opportunities place brands alongside not just one publisher’s content, but all the content people are seeking out or possibly looking for in a highly immersive environment. Sure you can place a CTV video ad in a cooking show, or even in multiple cooking shows airing at different times of the week on different channels. But now you can sponsor an entire curated discovery row dedicated to cooking and food. 

What’s more, it’s a way for brands to participate in and have a voice around TV tentpole events that they otherwise may be unable to penetrate with ads directly for either budgetary or other concerns. 

Artificial Walls

But — there’s always a “but” — the infrastructure of the ad-buying system has to catch up to these modern realities and formats. Ad buying is still very much based on format, on different types of media. You have TV media buyers, digital media buyers, print media buyers and so on. 

The TV home screen resides on a TV. The community buying CTV video inventory is looking at the home screen inventory through the same lens — gross ratings points (GRPs), 15- to 30-second videos, etc. It’s a paradigm they can’t get out of due to outdated strategies, outdated budgets or a little of both. (The same can be said for Wall Street analysts.)

The home screen opportunity is not your typical connected TV buy. It’s not even display. It’s a new medium that the infrastructure hasn’t adapted to yet. Most people get it, they’re just literally not empowered to buy it. 

The TV buying team has a TV buying budget to do one specific thing: buy video ads. Display ad teams have their budget for website ads. That’s largely because this is a new format disrupting a status quo that hasn’t changed much in decades. Of course the industry needs time to readjust. 

But this period of adjustment also presents an opportunity for the early adopters to snatch a huge slice of the “share of voice” pie, and do so at the same cost as advertising in a crowded linear market. As they succeed, these artificial walls impeding the adoption of home screen advertising will fall.

Ultimately, advertising content and budget follow the consumer. They go where viewers go. But sometimes, they get there a little late. 

Today, TV viewers are going in many different directions, but they’re all starting from the same place — the smart TV home screen. Advertising technology, budgets and strategies need to catch up to meet viewers where they now live. 

TV has changed. It’s not going back. So TV advertising has to change with it. 

The world of digital advertising is no stranger to debates and controversies. Consider YouTube's recent brush after an Adalytics report claimed adult ads are being served in kids’ content. Amidst the chatter, Google launched a counterstudy to shed more light on its technology. 

On the surface, all of this might seem like just another swipe at the tech giants. Given their size, many assume that companies like Google must be cutting corners, denying them the benefit of the doubt. And meanwhile, Google staffers are scratching their heads, asking, “Why are we suddenly the villains?”

But it also brings up a crucial, central question: Can — and more importantly, should — advertising on platforms like YouTube ever be fully automated? If not, where is the proper boundary between machine influence and human oversight?

The immense potential of machine learning is undeniable. We can now sift through vast data sets, identify patterns and target ads with incredible precision and speed. 

But precision doesn’t always translate to brand relevance or safety. Just because a machine can target an adult watching a children’s video doesn't mean it should. Context, after all, is king.

With controversies like the one we’ve seen with YouTube, we start to see some machine-learning pitfalls more clearly. Machines lack nuance. They can’t discern context the way humans can. For instance, while a program can recognize that a video is geared toward children, it’s pretty close to impossible for it to discern whether an adult is watching alongside them, leading to misplaced ads and wasted dollars. 

That said, here are some ways machine learning and process automation can add real value to YouTube advertising:

• Customizing Inclusion Lists: Brands want to ensure their content is running alongside the channels they approve. But with 51 million channels on YouTube, growing at year-over-year rates of over 35%, that's a heavy lift for a human. Enhanced toolsets here could refine advertiser control.
• Optimizing Campaigns: Machine learning can tailor optimization recommendations, enabling brands to hone their campaigns more effectively, so that they resonate better with target audiences.
• Pacing Budgets: It’s crucial to keep your ad spend on track. With the aid of automation, campaigns can better align their spending, ensuring they’re not overspending or underspending the allocated budget.

The value of automation becomes murkier when we move beyond these processes. While automation can manage a bid or predict a user’s next click, it can’t yet grasp the subtleties of human experience or the broader cultural context. We’ve seen machines falter when it comes to recognizing potentially harmful or inappropriate content. 

Remember when ads were routinely placed next to extremist content? Or the gun ads that kept getting past rules that supposedly prohibited them? Those were machine oversights. Targeting ads to kids? Another tech hiccup.

So where does this leave us? As in most areas, the future of YouTube advertising likely lies in a marriage between human and machine. That blend of human strategic expertise, honed through daily interaction with the platform, can provide insights and guidance that transcend basic metrics. Automation can handle the heavy lifting, but you need people to catch the nuances machines might miss. 

In the current landscape, relying too much on YouTube’s tools — or any single platform’s automation — isn’t just risky, it’s potentially reckless. The appetite for automation is growing, but so are the stakes. As the industry moves forward, brands and advertisers will have no choice but to recognize both strengths and limitations of automation — and adapt accordingly.

It certainly seems like the perfect era for a writer’s strike.

In the days of streaming, where virtually all content from every era of cinema and television is available on demand, distributors should be equipped to weather the current Writers Guild of America (WGA) work stoppage.

After all, Friends and Seinfeld, two hit shows from almost three decades ago, are two of this generation’s most-watched properties. On its own, Disney Plus is host to every Simpsons episode and all of the Marvel and Star Wars cinematic masterpieces and recently released companion shows, one of which just premiered (Ahsoka). Indeed, there is a whole genre of blog content and podcasts dedicated to “rewatches” of TV shows, as viewers try to dissect every bit of minutiae from frame to frame. More than 100 days into the WGA strike, there’s seemingly no reason for producers to rush a resolution.

That assumption, though, is based on an incredibly flawed rationale. As the backlog of content begins to get whittled away, studios need to act on the jarring reality that they should already know: Viewers will eventually tire of the unscripted content and retread shows and begin to crave new content. This is not a problem that will be solved with bond repurchases or economies of scale: It’s all about the content.

Old is New Again … for Now

Streaming executives may blanch at this notion, but the proof is in the customer behavior. While newly released streaming shows are in fact among the most-watched properties, customers regularly watch entertainment that has long since passed their network run (as seen, most recently, in this summer's explosion of popularity of Suits). Why, a streaming executive may ask, should there be pressure for a settlement when generations of customers haven’t experienced these classic properties yet?

While nostalgia is certainly a key ingredient in the streaming business model, it can only drive customer satisfaction so far. It’s a symbiotic relationship between the past and the future that gets thrown wildly off balance when the faucet of new content turns to a drip, and eventually, turns off entirely. A current cinematic masterpiece gets measured against Casablanca or Citizen Kane, modern sci-fi may get held up to the standard of Star Wars or Blade Runner. But these classics remain classics because viewers keep getting new contributions to which they can make those comparisons.

Executives may indeed think they can rely on the backlog of content they have in the can. Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO, openly admitted as much on the company’s first-quarter earnings call, echoing the thoughts of many studio executives when he said that the “large base of upcoming shows and films from around the world […] can probably serve our members better than most.”

“Probably” is the operative word here. Hard Knocks, an annual unscripted hit for HBO,  is putting up big numbers this summer by chronicling Aaron Rodgers’ first season with the New York Jets. Ahsoka, a new hit for Disney Plus, debuted to impressive numbers. These shows and others may in fact help Max and Disney Plus for the rest of the summer and the bulk of the fall. But what happens when those shiny new things lose their luster?

Avoiding the 2007 Mistake

The reality is that streaming likely has enough content already in post-production to make it another six to nine months down the road. That time will go incredibly fast, and every day a settlement proves elusive is a day closer to the leverage scales tipping the WGA’s way and meaningful, lasting damage to the industry as a whole.

Look no further than 15 years ago to the last WGA strike that lasted from November 5, 2007, to February 12, 2008. This current strike has already outlasted the ‘07-’08 version; a sobering realization when one considers just how much of an effect that dispute had on the industry at large.

New shows were thrown into chaos just as they were gaining some momentum. Viewership, particularly late-night viewership, eroded and never quite returned. True, the media of television, movies and streaming isn’t going away, but how users interact with them can fundamentally change in unpredictable ways. No medium is irreplaceable or permanent — just ask print media executives.

A Deal for the Future

Dragging out the writers’ strike, which keeps thousands of people out of work, may ultimately lead to a short-term advantage for studio executives, but it comes at the sacrifice of the long-term health of industry. As we’ve seen again and again, the true ticket to long-term, sustainable revenues for studios is high-quality content. By eroding it — either through virtual production techniques or scripts written by generative AI — the customer experience begins to suffer.  

Even as streaming services give customers a better way to weather this strike than the last, it is in everyone’s best interest to wrap this up in a hurry, before the backlog of yet-to-premiere content evaporates. When it does, studios may find out the hard way that nostalgia is only a commodity when experienced alongside the present day.

Programmatic might take up the lion’s share of media sales, but it’s still not preferred by premium publishers. While Insider Intelligence reported that in 2022 more than 90% of all digital display advertising was transacted programmatically, numbers can be deceiving. Giant platforms like Amazon, Meta and Google drive most of that volume, mainly through small and local advertisers. A lot of premium advertising is still sold directly. PubMatic recently estimated that 57% of connected TV inventory is sold directly, for example. There’s a good reason: Publishers can get significantly better costs per thousand (CPMs). 

The sticking point for publishers is that there is continuous pressure from advertisers to transact programmatically because they are often focused on audience-based media buying and performance metrics that lend themselves to optimization via a demand-side platform (DSP). 

Publishers aren’t about to stop advertisers from audience targeting nor are they going to drop programmatic. But they do need to address the gaping chasm that exists between programmatic inventory and high-quality premium inventory. Prices for direct-sold inventory can become artificially inflated because they are’t available on the open market, while programmatic advertising can see depressed CPMs because it’s only being valued for the audience, not the context or content quality.  

Converged media sales can give publishers a new approach that can raise overall effective costs per thousand impressions (eCPMs) and close the gap between premium and programmatic.

The Lemonade Equation

I like to think about a publisher’s product catalog as a pitcher of lemonade at my daughter’s lemonade stand. If my daughter has one pitcher to sell, she needs to do some quick math and some good marketing in order to maximize her revenue and her profits. 

To stretch the lemonade out, she might decide to use smaller cups so she can sell to more people. Or she might pop an ice cube or two in the glass, which provides her with a bit more wiggle room. If she’s really clever, she’ll bundle the lemonade with a cookie for a price that is a little better than if she sold either one separately. 

Compare this to programmatically sold inventory. It’s equivalent to a pitcher of lemonade that’s  simply placed on the table with a floor price and a “help yourself” sign. Without the right cup, the well-placed ice cube or the option to add a cookie, that lemonade is not maximizing profits. 

Enter converged media sales, which helps sellers package their underpriced inventory more effectively to maximize the overall profit with a better average price. 

Bundling the Best of Both

Our benchmarking data shows that overall, CPMs are down this year. At the same time, we’ve seen private-market video CPMs hold strong against other transaction types. In June alone, they grew over 5%, while private CTV CPMs grew 10%.

CTV represents the current growth channel caught in the middle between direct-sold and programmatic channels. Advertisers want audience targeting while publishers want premium prices. The promise of converged sales should be able to deliver both. Publishers could create enticing offers across a number of channels, including CTV, helping to lift their overall CPMs while giving advertisers access to their audience at scale. In particular, private/preferred video ad revenue has been rising over the past year and is now about the same as open auction, which gives publishers an incentive to focus on private-market deals. 

One of the biggest barriers to this kind of converged selling is the siloed technology that publishers use across their disparate properties from local linear to CTV to digital, and so on. A good place to focus is on a unified product catalog that can create packaged or bundled offers for advertisers. With a single-product catalog, advertisers have the building blocks to respond to RFPs with better offers and manage ad operations and optimization more seamlessly. 

The future doesn’t have to be a “race to the bottom.” With a single view of their inventory, publishers can start to create a more robust yield optimization strategy. Rather than relying on the black box of programmatic, publishers can test different bundled offers that bring up the price of their display while maintaining the control and premium prices of their best inventory. With artificial intelligence adding to the quantity of content in the market for publishers, inventory management becomes more complex, especially across channels.  

Publishers need to understand how they're being sold and for what price to ensure they receive maximum value and the highest eCPMs possible. In other words, publishers can have their lemonade and drink it, too. 

Opening a connected television (CTV) interface presents a unique challenge for someone who is looking to turn on their TV for a lazy session of viewing. With several visual boxes on-screen, all with varying logos or screengrabs showcasing what can be consumed, taking the first steps to viewing content over CTV is a lot like opening the menu at The Cheesecake Factory — more choices than one person can fully process.

The litany of streaming platforms, channels and applications available across the CTV ecosystem is growing every day and with good reason. Insider Intelligence forecasts that CTV households will hit 115.1 million by next year — more than doubling traditional pay TV households. The transition from traditional TV viewing to streaming over internet-connected television has arrived.

All of this underscores that the time for streamers and publishers to get their content in front of viewers is now. But, there’s a challenge that lies at the core of this mandate, and every other new frontier with services jockeying for their share of the market: discoverability.

Streaming Choice Overload

Just as many consumers express extreme overwhelm when sitting down to select a meal from The Cheesecake Factory’s famously expansive menu, the approaching ubiquity of CTV interfaces often leads to choice overload — a specific type of indecision born out of having too many choices. 

CTV comes with an incredible number of options among advertising-based video on demand (AVOD), subscription-based video on demand (SVOD), and free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST) channels. Hulu, Disney Plus, Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, The Roku Channel, and Peacock are just a handful of the streaming apps available, and we’re seeing more FAST channels — from names like Amazon and Comcast — launch every day.

For the average consumer, these choices are more or less indistinguishable from one another. Making a decision about which platform to subscribe to or which app to download and test often has to do with which options are presented on-screen most prominently. Otherwise, viewers who know exactly what they want to watch and where to watch it will choose their streaming option accordingly — though this is less often the case than a user who turns on the TV without a specific agenda hoping to be pleasantly surprised. And, even if one is familiar with their CTV interface, being creatures of habit, there’s often little room to connect with users who might consider a new streaming service — free or not.

This challenge of discoverability is not unique. The job of a marketer is to cut through the noise to find new customers who are likely to purchase a product again and again. Similarly for content distributors, finding viewers likely to enjoy their specific library of content, enticing them to download or open the corresponding app and encouraging them to return to watch content on a regular basis is the million-dollar question the streaming ecosystem has in front of it.

Not-so-distant industry history provides a glimpse of how this might play out. Performance-based marketing solutions revolutionized customer acquisition for the web and mobile apps. From this point forward, the same approach to data-driven targeting and measurement has the potential to effectively transform streaming advertising.

Understanding Content Is Key

A first requirement of getting in front of the right viewers is for the technology to truly learn and understand your content. Are you a FAST channel focused on live sports, a publisher centered around local news, a streamer with a myriad of programming across genres or in some other niche? Once the technology knows your content, it can then pave a better path to finding — with compounding effectiveness — the user profiles most likely to download and engage with your content library. Like any performance marketing effort, the goal becomes to acquire new viewers at such an effective rate that the cost of spending on advertising becomes revenue positive.

Solving the discoverability challenge clearly stands as the next frontier in assisting viewers to find their way through the comprehensive CTV menu. Imagine a future state where content distributors advertising their streaming services and content can swiftly find and actively promote to the most high-value viewers. The increasingly positive outcomes, both in terms of volume and efficiency, would begin to speak for themselves.

 After decades of primetime exclusion, diverse creators and audiences are finally making progress and getting new options and representation thanks to the rise of innovative streaming services. A 2023 UCLA study found that “women and people of color are finding more job opportunities in streaming release” and in 2021 Nielsen reported that “Americans want more diversity on TV and they’re increasingly finding more of it on streaming platforms.” Moreover, culturally specific streaming services like AllBlk and Pantaya have emerged giving diverse voices exciting new opportunities to find audiences and succeed. 

But this long-sought progress is now being threatened by a pressure campaign orchestrated by a small number of powerful traditional broadcast TV groups. They want the government to impose outdated cable regulations on internet streaming, which would force streamers to carry more of these broadcasters’ programming, and pay more for it. A June 2023 letter from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) asks the FCC to review the issue.

But this approach would turn back the clock on American media and erect new barriers for diverse creators trying to gain a foothold on modern streaming services. The broadcasters’ scheme would immediately impact services offering live TV and a mix of channels, such as Hulu Live Plus, YipTV, and YouTubeTV, but could also extend to a diverse mix of on-demand services like Netflix and Disney Plus, as well as ALLBLK and Revry.

The big “local” broadcast groups — actually multibillion-dollar conglomerates of TV stations across the country, like Nexstar Media Group, Sinclair and Gray Television — argue that, because live TV streamers offer multiple shows and channels, they are the same as traditional cable and satellite television systems and should be regulated the same way. The decades-old rules for cable and satellite TV, however — including required channel lineups, mandatory government fees and complicated billing — created the very headaches that American households are finally relieved from with the advent of streaming. 

Those rules also require every cable and satellite subscriber to purchase access to local TV channels, even when they can receive them free over the air! It’s no wonder big broadcasters now want the government to force streaming subscribers to also pay. 

These old cable and satellite regulations led to nationwide consolidation of less diverse local TV broadcasting and more expensive and bloated channel packages from subscription cable and satellite services. Competitive streaming options, on the other hand, offer more variety, less expense and greater flexibility. This free and open competition — which applies across the entire streaming ecosystem from on demand services like Netflix to platform services like YouTube TV — has made it possible for diverse programmers and creators to gain a foothold and bring new options to underserved and underrepresented audiences and communities. 

On-screen and behind the camera, diverse entrepreneurs are creating new programming, companies, and channels that look like, and serve, all of America. But the big broadcasters’ self-serving proposal would tilt the scales against new voices by forcing streamers to pay more for legacy programming owned by traditional media, exhausting funds that would otherwise be available for diverse new shows and channels.

The broadcast groups say they need regulatory help to fund local programming like news, weather, and sports. But these stations can already negotiate with streaming services to license their news and other programming at whatever price the market will bear. They aren’t seeking the right to negotiate — which they already have — they are asking to tilt the playing field for negotiations in their favor so they can get an above market price and gain a captive audience. Which in many cases they then fail to serve with genuinely local voices and programming, bringing in national news and editorial views that are often widely out of step with the communities they claim to serve.

Regulator Skepticism Is Warranted

In 2014, President Barack Obama’s FCC considered this issue in detail and concluded that legacy cable and satellite rules were a bad fit for emerging live TV streaming services. President Joe Biden’s FCC chair, Jessica Rosenworcel, has rightly continued this skepticism — going even further and warning that the laws governing the FCC do not even permit it to apply rules designed for one kind of technology (cable and satellite systems) to another (internet-based streamers). And the thriving and innovative streaming ecosystem consumers are enjoying today — bursting at the seams with new stories, voices, and options — has borne out the wisdom of those judgments.

The FCC should look forward and focus its energies on fixing real programs that plague our digital lives — from misinformation and hate speech online to the lack of internet access in multicultural communities and the lasting problem of the digital divide. It should not wind back the clock on progress by tipping the scales in programming negotiations against diverse new streaming services and options to pad the bottom line of wealthy broadcast chains.

The explosive rise of online streaming video services like Netflix, Hulu and YouTube has dramatically altered the consumer experience for video content unlike anything seen since the advent of color television. And while gallons of ink have been spilled analyzing streamers’ threat to the cable TV business, streaming has also massively disrupted local television broadcasters’ economics — both in terms of advertising revenue and fees for retransmission rights. 

Tough circumstances have caused some parties to seek refuge via government protections at the Federal Communications Commission, arguing Internet streamers should be captured within the agency’s grips akin to old-school cable operators, which would improperly give broadcasters exponentially more leverage in content and carriage negotiations. Aside from being an absolutely horrible policy decision, the FCC has no authority to do so. Commissioners should flatly reject calls to (re)explore such a misguided direction. 

Broadcasters Must Adjust to Changes

As a long-time defender of local television broadcasters, I respect the valuable contributions that individual stations and their network partners bring to viewers and their respective communities.  But the current market realities cannot be ignored: technological advances and consumer viewing patterns have changed dramatically. eMarketer estimates that almost 36% of families have cut the traditional cable video cord, choosing to get programming through the internet and other means. And Barron’s estimates that internet streaming time already has surpassed hours spent watching cable or local broadcast stations. Broadcasters, like all industries challenged by progress, will need to alter their practices and counter competitors in the market.  

The best response from affected parties and government agencies would be to seek to completely deregulate almost every aspect of local broadcasting. Rather than continuing as a regulatory piñata, broadcasters should push regulators vehemently to eliminate every burden in which they are treated differently than their streaming counterparts. Media ownership limits on the national or local level? Expensive record keeping and licensing reviews? There is no logical defense in today’s radically remade video marketplace to maintain regulations designed for a 1970s industry. 

Those seeking to pursue the regulatory state as local broadcasting’s savior, rather than the nemesis it can be, are fundamentally missing or intentionally ignoring the fact that the market is already working. This is particularly relevant for those demanding the government interfere in the content negotiations between Internet streamers and television networks. Market forces and private-sector negotiations are already doing just fine on their own: the networks (and their programming partnerships) who hold rights to certain programming get to determine how the content is sold or carried by Internet streamers. If local broadcasters are being neglected or ignored in these negotiations, they’re free to work out those disagreements via their affiliate contracts with the networks. The commission inserting new rules and regulations would create new rights where none exist today.

To the extent that internet streamers seek to carry the entirety of a local broadcaster’s signal, broadcasters are free to negotiate that right to render the proper price point and conditions. But they must be aware that what they are selling can be mostly replicated by other broadcasters or the networks themselves.  There is no market scarcity, much less market exclusivity, in an always-on video world of thousands upon thousands of programming options. 

Congress’s Key Role

Equally important, Congress hasn’t authorized the FCC to insert itself into these negotiations.  The definitions and language Congress wrote into current statutory provisions do not extend to internet streamers. 

While my good friend and former FCC commissioner Rob McDowell recently argued that this omission is a loophole or quirk in the regulations, that is just not accurate. When serving at the commission, I extensively reviewed the previous proceeding’s record and took all the meetings in which these exact jurisdictional issues — a specialty of mine — were explored. The argument is without merit, no matter whatever legal gymnastics lawyers seek to pursue.  Simply put, the commission is precluded from acting without subsequent authority granted by Congress.    

Reopening a dead proceeding — even if the FCC is just examining if it has authority to act — breathes a hint of hope that the government might extend its fishing expedition, eventually to be rejected by the courts.  By that time, however, the commission’s unlawful overreach would already be distorting the video marketplace by generating unfair leverage in private negotiations.      

Internet streaming is a wonder for consumers, despite how troublesome it may be for the traditional industry participants. The government, in this case the FCC, should avoid interfering in a working market and reject calls to examine its nonexistent authority to intervene. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, government is not the solution to the problem; government would become the problem.     

On June 23, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission released its “Third Report and Order, Authorizing Permissive Use of the Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard (Third NextGen Report),” confirming the ATSC 3.0 format as the gold standard for over-the-air (OTA) programming. ATSC 3.0 also allows for two-way interactivity, multiscreen applications, 4K (and potentially 8K) resolution, immersive (Dolby AC-4)  audio, mobile reception, possible integration with existing 5G cellular networks, datacasting (ATSC 3.0 uses internet protocol (IP) for signal delivery, so it can also broadcast IP-based data) and much more.

The FCC’s records show that broadcasters are currently using NextGen TV service to deliver a cutting-edge end user experience, and ATSC 3.0 stations are available in 68 markets covering 60% of U.S. households. 

Major station groups — e.g., Fox Television Stations, NBCUniversal Local, Tegna, Sinclair, Nexstar Media Group, etc. — are providing NextGen service in a variety of markets. Those markets include Seattle-Tacoma, Washington; Atlanta; Austin, Texas;  Baltimore; Albuquerque-Santa Fe, New Mexico; Albany, New York; and Birmingham, Alabama; to name a few. This has allowed multiscreen applications, 1080p HDR and 4K resolution, and broadcast apps (interactivity) with direct access to local news assets, OTT content (like Sinclair’s STIRR), radio services, and some point-to-multipoint datacasting, not simply simulcasting. As the deployment of ATSC 3.0 continues and stations expand market acceptance, its full promise will be manifest.

This is why ATSC 3.0 is so crucial: It opens a path forward for broadcasters, and that serves the public interest. The Third NextGen Report announced the following decisions: 

• Allows the simulcasting of multicast 1.0 and 3.0 streams on one or more host stations, but those simulcast multicast streams must be “substantially similar” in both formats;

• Allows a station broadcasting in 3.0 to temporarily modify its license to include one or more 1.0 multicast streams aired on a 1.0 host(s), even if it is not simulcasting on a paired 3.0 stream;

• Limits the number of 1.0 streams a station may host to only the number it has the capacity to transmit within its channel in 1.0; 

• To limit the loss of a station’s 1.0 primary service when migrating to 3.0, a station may, in limited circumstances primarily involving LPTV fill-in service, simulcast its primary stream on a primary stream host and on a different multicast stream host; 

• Extends the requirement that a station’s programming on both its 1.0 and 3.0 service must be “substantially similar” from July 17, 2023 to July 17, 2027; Extends the requirement to comply with the A/322 standard to July 17, 2027, from March 6, 2023;

• Maintains the non-applicability of the FCC’s ownership attribution rule, confirming that hosted multicast streams do not trigger an ownership issue.

While these new requirements are marginal improvements over the current system, they remain overly cumbersome and restrictive. They continue down a course that makes broadcast innovation costly and difficult and maintains an uneven media marketplace that makes the future of free-to-the-home broadcasting unclear. 

As the FCC’s 2022 Quadrennial Review is once again demonstrating, the current media marketplace has a virtually unlimited amount and variety of content options. The seemingly endless increase in the number of devices and platforms available to access that content continue to threaten free broadcasting. Further, the media marketplace is dominated by big tech and telecom titans — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, AT&T, Verizon Communications, Comcast, etc. — none of which are subject to the same Depression-era ownership and regulatory control by the FCC as are broadcasters.

The capital basis of these giant companies is tens and hundreds of times larger than that of the largest broadcaster. That inequality of scale creates an unequal competitive playing field and (unfairly) exacerbates the challenges local stations face in their ability to offer effective service in their local markets, especially smaller ones. This is particularly so in the context of local stations maintaining the “substantially similar” simulcast requirements to introduce and operate a NextGen station.

Broadcasters also face regulatory obstacles to investment and innovation that the giant tech platforms do not, and implementation of new ATSC 3.0 service is no different. As the National Association of Broadcasters recently pointed out in its 2022 Quadrennial Review comments, “wireless carriers, for example, move from one generation of technology to the next on their own terms and on their own schedule, but TV broadcasters must seek FCC approval — with its inevitable delays — to invest millions of their own dollars in their own facilities to improve a service offered free to the public. The commission actively seeks to make additional spectrum available to wireless carriers and for unlicensed services to encourage innovation and deployment of new services, while broadcasters have faced years-long regulatory processes when seeking permission to offer new services, such as ATSC 3.0 and digital audio broadcasting (DAB), using the spectrum already licensed to them.”

Regardless, the FCC’s Third NextGen Report maintains the agency’s regulatory hold on broadcasters and continues to saddle the television industry with significant hurdles to implement a NextGen service. Rather than recognizing market realities and fully enabling broadcasters to enhance their ability to serve viewers and listeners through the technological innovation that ATSC 3.0 allows, the FCC instead maintains a heavy regulatory hand. 

Instead, the FCC should recognize that broadcasters make significant capital investments when adopting new technologies, and prioritize promoting broadcast innovations with the goal of both improving service to the public and the competitive viability of free-to-the-home broadcasting. Allowing greater economies of scale, deregulating its ownership rules and eliminating regulatory hurdles (e.g., broadcasters currently pay almost 60%, or $230 million, of the FCC’s current budget of $390 million in regulatory fees) would allow stations to afford investments in improved technologies like ATSC 3.0, and best serve the public interest. Until that happens, broadcasters remain vulnerable to unfair competition from big tech and the telecom titans, and many broadcasters may well conclude that providing content via unregulated platforms, such as online and internet streaming, is a better economic choice for the future. This risks service in the public interest and risks seeing broadcasting going the way of the newspaper business.

In late May, a warning bell sounded for Netflix: The research firm OnePoll, having surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults on behalf of Forbes, was picking up signals suggesting that as much as 35% of the Netflix subscriber base might cancel subscriptions in protest of price hikes and/or the streamer’s new clampdown on password-sharing. 

Here’s the backdrop: On May 23, Netflix notified customers of a new “Extra Members” policy: Account holders sharing logins for Netflix’s Standard Plan with someone outside the immediate household would need to tack on a $7.99-per-month surcharge to continue sharing. Alternatively, the user drafting on someone else’s credentials can transfer their profile to a new paid account of their choosing. Alternatively again, the subscribing member could stop allowing someone else to use their login credentials altogether. 

A separate survey from Samba TV and HarrisX came to a similar conclusion around consumer sentiment: 37% of Netflix subscribers would consider canceling in the wake of the new password policy. In both cases, the results seemed chilling: Forbes noted that the findings, if extrapolated to Netflix’s entire global user base, “could result in approximately 80 million lost subscribers.” 

But then, only days later, better news. The researcher Antenna, which examines payment data, found that Netflix was adding new accounts in droves. Antenna calculated that Netflix had its best four-day runup of subscriber additions in nearly five years, with more than 100,000 accounts inaugurated on May 26 and again on May 27. Tightening the screws on password-sharing suddenly looked to be a brilliant business maneuver. 

The obvious question, then, is: Who got it right? And who got it wrong? 

The answer to the first question is: probably both. The answer to the second is: probably neither.

The truth is that both findings can be true: Netflix can lose lots of subscriptions because of its hardened password-enforcement approach (although 80 million seems clearly to be an exaggeration). At the same time, Netflix can also add lots of subscriptions because of the very same policy. 

First the bearish case: It’s certain that some number of accounts will peel away as users bristle at the clampdown on password-sharing. This may be the sentiment researchers from OnePoll and Samba/HarrisX picked up: a generalized recoiling from the realization that parents, for example, can no longer freely share credentials with their kids who are away at college. If Sarah the sophomore can no longer log in with mom and dad’s account, goes the thinking, then we’ll cancel altogether. 

Or at least, that’s what people may be telling survey takers. As always, survey data can reflect stated intentions that don’t always materialize. Fans of the Netflix courtroom drama The Lincoln Lawyer, for example, may reconsider their cancellation vow when new episodes of the original series hit the Netflix menu next month. 

Antenna’s reliance on “millions of consumer transactions” shared by opt-in contributors offers a different viewpoint, suggesting many Netflix stowaways are going legit. One longtime Netflix user recently confessed to the online magazine The Ringer that “a decade of Netflix mooching” may be ending.

What matters in the end is what everyone who has ever managed a subscription business must contend with: the delta between gross subscriber additions and gross subscriber defections. If the total number of new accounts tied to the password-sharing clampdown — “gross adds” in industry-speak — is greater than the total number of disconnects tied to the new policy, Netflix might win big with a surge in paying customers.

The word “might” applies here because it’s not just pickups and defections resulting from the new password policy that matter. There is also underlying, normally occurring activity. In any time period, Netflix, like every subscription service provider, loses some accounts and gains others. What’s changed is that now, this normal churn within the customer base is amplified by accelerated activity tied to the password clampdown. 

Where does Netflix come out? We’ll know by mid-July, when Netflix releases second-quarter financial results. Regardless of the net tallies, the outcome will hinge on these ingredients: 

The stowaway universe. We don’t know exactly how many password-sharers are out there, but a fair body of research suggests three or more of every 10 U.S. Netflix account holders share their passwords with somebody outside of the immediate household. (Leichtman Research Group has reported the U.S. number for Netflix at 33%; Netflix itself reported in 2022 that 100 million subscribers, or nearly half the global total, shared passwords.) In North America, Netflix counted 74.4 million paid memberships — tantamount to household or individual subscriptions — as of March 31. A reasonable estimate, drawing from the sources above, is that there may be around 26 million Netflix password-sharing accounts in the U.S. and Canada. (Or roughly 35% of the North American total.)

Membership conversions. There are three swing votes here. First, what percentage of rogue users now relying on shared credentials will convert to their own paid accounts? Second, what percentage of members will agree to a $7.99 surcharge to keep their friends/family members aboard? (Note that in this case, it’s possible there may be little impact on Netflix’s net subscriber total, but a bump in monthly spending per account, as existing members will now pay more.) Third, what percentage of members will either disconnect altogether as a form of protest, as the research firms OnePoll and Samba warned, or will simply stop allowing others to log in? Regarding the first option — converting shared password users to paying accounts — it’s likely the range of conversions will be high by direct-marketing standards. Netflix has a keen advantage in that these users don’t have to be “sold” on the product. They’re already familiar at a level of intimacy, many of them maintaining unique identities, viewing histories and personalized content recommendations. Further, the cause is aided by the fact that Netflix now offers an advertising-supported iteration for just $6.99 per month. As a result, the economic barrier to entry is lower than ever. It’s a good time to be vanquishing rogue passwords. 

Normal churn. Netflix has been carefully guarding its churn metric out of competitive concerns. One of the more trustworthy estimates comes from category analyst Doug Shapiro, who cites Antenna data putting Netflix’s monthly churn rate in 2022 at around 3.3%. If we round down for simplicity to 3%, it suggests the service sheds about 2 million North American accounts every month and must replace them with newcomers in order to grow. 

Password-induced churn. It’s naive to think Netflix won’t lose some of its North American base because of the new password-sharing clampdown — maybe even a big chunk. If we believe that 35% of subscribers share passwords, and that around 10% of those account holders will cancel altogether (a bleak scenario, but one that’s possible), we can project that Netflix could lose as many as 3 million U.S. and Canada accounts during the current transformation period because of the pushback against the new password policy.

The growth challenge. In sum, it’s possible Netflix could lose as many as 5 million total North American subscribers in short order as the new policies take hold, 2 million from normal monthly churn and another 3 million or so because of password-related defections. In order to show net subscriber growth over this same period, Netflix needs to add at least one more subscriber than it loses.

Net additions. Can Netflix do it? Almost assuredly. In the pool of 26 million or so users currently drafting on a friend or family member’s credentials, Netflix possesses an enormous and enviable pool of gross-addition prospects who have a greater-than-usual propensity to sign up for their own accounts. If we apply a conversion rate of 25% to the pool of (26 million) password-sharers, then Netflix might rack up 6.5 million gross adds from a one-time phenomenon. Against our calculated loss of around 5 million, that sum indicates a bounty of more than 1 million net new memberships. If Netflix can hold down the number of cancellations to the sub-5 million level over roughly a one-month burst, the results could be even more striking. Also, not to be overlooked are the password-sharing households that agree to foot the bill for their hangers-on. How Netflix accounts for this new classification of customers will have impact on the reported subscriber totals. 

How the early returns play out won’t be known to investors and the general public until a few weeks from now. Internally, of course, managers at Netflix already can see where the trends are headed on a minute-by-minute basis. When the final tallies are known to the rest of us, they will serve as a reminder of the vagaries and uncertainty of third-party surveillance data. Forbes warned of major defections. Antenna saw little but upside. In the end, both may be right.  

It would be easy to dismiss the annual convergence of advertising executives for the Cannes Lions as another industry conference, amongst dozens of others, albeit with better views. However, each time I attend, when I reflect on my time there, I’m struck by the power of the experience. Cannes is many things. Just another conference is not one of them. 

Perhaps it’s because Cannes brings advertising professionals together from all over the world, from all aspects of our industry, in a relatively confined space for a limited number of days. When you have so much concentrated creativity and brain power in one place, great ideas tend to happen. And while each attendee will likely take away something different, from my vantage point — the premium video advertising marketplace — the big ideas surfacing in meetings, casual conversations, and programming across La Croisette fell into three interrelated areas this year.

The Need for Connectivity

Fragmentation within the premium video landscape is not new. But with the increase of ad-supported, TV viewing options now available to consumers, it has crescendoed. This year, the need to help advertisers connect with consumers across screens and platforms took on a new urgency.

Ultimately, connectivity hinges upon advancements in the privacy-focused use of data to unite audiences. This will impact the ability to provide advertisers with everything from the basic building blocks of reach and frequency to the more sophisticated capabilities now possible on TV viewing platforms, such as advanced targeting and addressability. And in the end, it is what will allow us to provide the level of measurement and attribution necessary to allow advertisers to continue to invest in the premium video marketplace. The need for innovation in the use of data to fuel new measurement solutions is the impetus behind the launch of the unprecedented U.S. Joint Industry Committee (JIC) for premium video measurement, whose members were present and outspoken across Cannes stages this year.

The Need for Simplicity

The result of greater fragmentation is greater complexity. Again, while not new, we are hearing a rising appeal from advertisers to make it easier to plan and buy premium video advertising. Moreover, this year, there was a growing focus on helping global advertisers reach TV viewers in a unified way across markets and regions. 

One example of a response to this growing need was NBCUniversal’s announcement at Cannes of a global partnership with seven other international programmers and OMG to offer advertisers multimarket campaigns across addressable linear TV, CTV, and premium digital video ad inventory in a single buy for the first time. This offering provides marketers with the ability to execute advanced advertising solutions at scale across premium networks, and geographical boundaries in a more simplified way to maximize return on investment. This is a great illustration of the power of working together for the greater good of the industry. 

The Need for Partnerships

Following on my last point, this year at Cannes I witnessed an overwhelming willingness of competitors, frenemies, and tech providers to partner on industry initiatives. The premium video marketplace is deep in the heart of change. Consumer viewing technologies are still outpacing advertising solutions. And in the past few years, whereas most companies were focused on building their own next-generation viewing platforms and advertising solutions, there is a growing realization that each may have gone as far as they can alone. 

Now is the time to put in place the frameworks, standards, interoperable capabilities and best practices needed to take premium video advertising to the next level. One of the first initiatives to embrace this concept was Go Addressable, and its predecessor On Addressability, which was first launched in Cannes in 2019. Now, some four years later, Go Addressable includes all major premium video distributors, and has helped set common industry guidelines to help facilitate and accelerate the scale, enablement, and adoption of Addressable TV, which 90% of advertisers and agencies now say is critical to the future of TV advertising, per Advertiser Perceptions — a great example of winning together.

My key takeaways are centered around media and technology, as that is my day-to-day focus. However, Cannes also forces us to look up and see the broader meaning of advertising. It celebrates creativity. It celebrates engagement. It celebrates effectiveness. And it makes us realize that the consumer is at the heart of everything we strive to do. 

Everyone working in advertising has a different role to play in bringing the consumer experience to life. For my part, optimizing the consumer’s experience as a viewer of premium video has been a recent focus. In fact, this was the impetus behind FreeWheel’s launch of The Viewer Experience Lab at Cannes this year, an initiative supported by major publishers including A+E Networks, AMC Networks, Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery and NBCUniversal. The goal of the project is to help media companies ensure a quality experience for viewers across the growing array of traditional and emerging advertising channels that support their premium content. 

There is much work ahead as we each embark on improving our individual pieces of the advertising landscape. But as I think back on an exhilarating week, I’m ready to look ahead and get on with it. See you next year, Cannes. 

In a world increasingly driven by digital connectivity, access to the internet is no longer a luxury — it is a fundamental necessity that allows Pennsylvanians to communicate, learn, work, socialize and access essential services. The COVID-19 pandemic only magnified the challenges faced by those in our state who still lack access to high-speed internet.

Thanks to $1.16 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds, Pennsylvania has a once-in-a-generational opportunity to bridge the digital divide by deploying broadband to unserved and underserved areas. From across the Northern Tier to the Poconos, across the southwest counties and in the corners of our Commonwealth, our goal is to help ensure that everyone who wants to be connected can be.

We are grateful that Pennsylvania will receive more than $1 billion. However, we also know that amount will go quickly based on current parameters. Having the money at hand is a tremendous first step, but other steps must be taken in order to serve as many locations as possible. Writing a check doesn’t automatically lead to laying fiber to the home. 

Several obstacles still stand in the way of successful deployment, namely in terms of time and money. We have great concern that state guidelines for the grant money using prevailing wage rates could deter qualified internet service providers from even applying for the funds. 

We do not oppose the use of prevailing wage, as it has an important role to play in our economy, but we believe the wage rates should be appropriate to the work being done and not applied through a broad, catchall classification. Doing so may very well increase project costs by upward of 30%, meaning that nearly one-third of eligible projects won’t be funded. Those additional costs do not even include the possibility that providers may just seek to apply for funding for projects in neighboring states. 

But all is not lost, and there is something that can be done. We must now work together to ensure these critical broadband investments are put to their best use so that no community is left behind.

We impress upon the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority, the state agency that will ultimately decide grant recipients, along with state leaders and policymakers, that every efficiency must be found and implemented to ensure every dollar is used to its maximum benefit. 

In doing so, we implore them to revisit and revise wage classifications, pass permitting reform both in the public and private sectors and assist communities in getting ready for broadband. We must leave no stone unturned as we seek to close the digital divide, but we need their help. 

Pennsylvania’s broadband communications industry has the proven track record of success, technical expertise and experience to connect every community to digital opportunity, and remains committed to getting the job done. Let’s make sure we have the best tools at our disposal so that every who wants to be connected can.

As we commemorate the remarkable 40-year journey of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), it is essential to recognize the pivotal role that high-quality content has played in the success of digital television broadcasting. This significant milestone calls for both celebration and introspection, emphasizing the significance of content in driving the widespread adoption and utilization of ATSC standards, particularly the latest, ATSC 3.0. 

While technology serves as a necessary foundation, it alone is insufficient in the dynamic media industry. The availability of captivating high-quality content is a requisite to unleash the potential of the technology and accelerate its adoption.

During the NextGen Broadcast Conference 2023 on June 15, FCC commissioner Nathan Simington emphasized the importance of differentiating content between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0, with the aim of attracting viewers to preferentially gravitate towards ATSC 3.0 content. This preference establishes a pathway for the successful transition to the new standard.

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Technology and Content: Reflecting on the remarkable achievements of the ATSC over the past four decades, it becomes evident that the evolution of digital television broadcasting relies on a symbiotic relationship between technology and content. ATSC’s advancements in standards and transmission protocols have paved the way for enhanced viewer experiences and expanded possibilities for content creators. However, it is the creative prowess, innovation and storytelling excellence of content providers that captivates audiences and fosters loyalty.

The Role of Content Producers and Broadcasters: Recognizing the pivotal role that content producers and broadcasters play in driving the demand for ATSC 3.0 is of utmost importance. By understanding the capabilities of ATSC 3.0 and aligning their content production strategies accordingly, producers and broadcasters can effectively leverage the innovations in digital television broadcasting and offer a better quality of experience (QoE).

Understanding the Media Ecology: To comprehend the impact of ATSC and its co-existence with other media technologies, we must acknowledge that no medium operates in isolation. Each medium exists within a broader ecosystem comprising various platforms, technologies and diverse content. Therefore, when introducing a new medium like ATSC 3.0, it becomes crucial to assess its interactions and integration with existing and emerging media, such as traditional broadcast platforms like ATSC 1.0, streaming services, online content platforms like over-the-top (OTT) and FAST channels, as well as DOCSIS 4.0 and 5G.

The Power of AI in Content Production: The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought about a transformative revolution in audiovisual content production, increasing efficiency and unleashing creativity. Through computer vision technologies, the process of capturing, editing and stitching video content has been streamlined, enabling content creators to achieve remarkable results in a fraction of the time. This AI-driven efficiency has reduced the previous barriers of low efficiency and high costs associated with high-quality content production, providing content creators with a newfound freedom to explore their creativity and bring their visions to life.

The Co-Evolutionary Process of the Media Landscape: The media landscape is a dynamic and interconnected ecosystem in which content, technologies, and human experiences co-evolve. This co-evolution entails reciprocal influences and adaptations among these elements, constantly shaping and transforming the media ecosystem over time.

Content creators have a crucial role in cultivating this ecosystem by producing innovative, thought-provoking, and entertaining content that captures attention and resonates with viewers.

Technologies serve as enablers within the media ecosystem, introducing new possibilities and revolutionizing the creation, distribution, and consumption of content.

Human experiences drive the evolution of the media ecosystem, as they influence content preferences and social dynamics that shape the demand for specific types of content and the adoption of different technologies.

This co-evolutionary process is characterized by constant feedback loops and adaptations that drive innovation and progress. Evolving content preferences and user behaviors influence the development of new technologies, creating a continuous cycle of innovations.

In celebrating 40 years of ATSC, it is important to recognize the indispensable role of high-quality content in shaping its success. Content producers and broadcasters hold the key to harnessing the capabilities of this technology and creating exceptional experiences for viewers.

Understanding the interconnected nature of media technologies, content production, and audience experiences is paramount for continuous innovation and adaptation. By nurturing the symbiotic relationship between the medium and content, we can cultivate a vibrant and relevant media landscape that evolves with the needs and preferences of audiences. With a commitment to high-quality content, we can ensure that ATSC’s legacy endures, driving the future of exceptional digital television broadcasting.

Comedy American Auto will not see another season on NBC. Set in Detroit, it is a workplace comedy about an inept automotive company, Payne Motors, struggling to adapt to modern times. 

The cast includes Ana Gasteyer, Harriet Dyer, Jon Barinholtz, Humphrey Ker, Michael B. Washington, Tye White and X Mayo. 

The show premiered in January 2022. There were two seasons. 

American Auto comes from Justin Spitzer, who executive produces with Jeff Blitz, Aaron Kaplan and Dana Honor. Spitzer said on Twitter: “Season 3 of #americanauto was going to show Katherine Hastings and Payne Motors finally finding success and taking the world by storm. I’m so sorry we didn’t get to make those episodes, but I’m immensely proud of the 23 episodes of the show we did put out there.”

American Auto is produced by Universal Television in association with Spitzer Holding Co. and Kapital Entertainment.  

The democratization of generative AI has brought about a transformative shift in society, empowering individuals to actively participate in communication and content creation. This shift is exemplified by platforms like ChatGPT and the rise of discursive communication, which have significantly influenced interactive and creative experiences. AI chatbots provide accessible support by offering valuable information, resources and emotional assistance, particularly in situations where human interaction may be challenging. The ability to express oneself to a nonjudgmental AI and the convenience and anonymity of digital communication are highly valued advantages.

However, it is important to recognize the limitations and risks associated with relying solely on AI agents, especially in sensitive and vulnerable situations. While chatbots can provide valuable assistance, they may lack the nuanced understanding, empathy and contextual comprehension that human interactions offer. Authentic human connection and support often prove essential during challenging times, areas where conversational AI may fall short.

Furthermore, the quality and accuracy of information provided by AI agents can vary based on their training data and algorithms. It is crucial to acknowledge that the dissemination of misinformation or biased responses can have serious consequences, particularly when individuals place their trust and reliance on the information provided.

AI chatbots are commonly perceived as objective sources of information, but it is important to be mindful of the influence of “prompt engineering.” When prompts are intentionally designed to promote specific viewpoints or agendas, users may unknowingly internalize and accept those perspectives as objective and unbiased. As a result, a deceptive illusion of objectivity emerges, significantly shaping user perceptions.

AI Interactions Pose Risks

The tragic incident involving Pierre, a Belgian man who died by suicide after prolonged interactions with an AI chatbot, serves as a poignant reminder of the risks and consequences associated with human engagement with AI beings. This incident highlights the potential introduction of unintended biases or manipulation into interactions between humans and AI models. Users, through the injection of specific prompts, may unknowingly perpetuate skewed perspectives or reinforce existing biases present in the training data. These outcomes can further exacerbate societal inequities, foster polarizing viewpoints, and, in extreme cases, even provide fatal advice.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the implications of AI chatbots, which may become the primary avenue for communication and content creation, one should carefully consider their broader impact on individuals and society as a whole.

In the realm of second-order cybernetics, valuable insights are derived regarding the role of the observer in shaping the observed system. Second-order cybernetics emphasizes the concept of reflexivity, which involves the ability to observe and modify one’s own observations and actions. This concept aligns with the high standards of journalism. Prompt engineering, operating within this framework, establishes a feedback loop that incorporates the prompt, the generated output, and its evaluation. Through this iterative process, prompts are adjusted based on the generated results and the user's self-reflection, aiming to achieve desired outcomes and enhance the effectiveness of the generative AI model in producing tailored and high-quality content.

Prompt engineering is inherently subjective, influenced by the biases, intentions, and objectives of different “prompt engineers.” This subjectivity highlights the observer-dependent nature of prompt engineering, where the designed prompts can subtly promote specific agendas or biases, potentially reinforcing a distorted understanding of information and viewpoints.

To maintain a balanced and ethical approach, users of chatbots should be self-aware of their own biases and strive for fairness, inclusivity and responsible use of AI technology in their prompt engineering practices. This requires an ongoing examination of the prompts used to ensure that unintentional biases are not introduced or perpetuated.

Furthermore, the principles of second-order cybernetics highlight the interconnectedness and co-creation between observers (content creators) and systems (generative AI models). Prompt engineering can be viewed as a collaborative process where content creators provide prompts and evaluate the generated output, enabling them to learn from the model's responses, adapt their prompts accordingly, and refine their understanding of the system's capabilities and limitations. This iterative approach allows for a more informed and mindful prompt engineering process.

Ethical Concerns for Content Creators

This perspective raises important ethical questions about the role and responsibilities of observers in shaping AI systems. Prompt engineering carries ethical implications, as the choice of prompts can significantly influence the biases, fairness and quality of the AI model’s output. Content creators bear the responsibility of being mindful of these ethical considerations, striving to mitigate biases, promote inclusivity and ensure responsible use of AI technology in their prompt engineering practices.

In the context of citizen journalism, the significance of journalistic practices in prompt engineering becomes evident. Human oversight and critical thinking are indispensable. Journalists must exercise professional judgment, independently verify information and uphold ethical standards throughout their work. While generative AI models can serve as valuable tools to support and enhance journalistic endeavors, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring accuracy, fairness, and journalistic integrity lies with human journalists.

In conclusion, while AI chatbots offer valuable support and enhance communication experiences, users must be aware of the limitations and risks associated with relying solely on AI agents. Prompt engineering practices should be guided by self-awareness, fairness, inclusivity and responsible use of AI technology. The utilization of second-order cybernetics and adherence to journalistic practices can contribute to mitigating biases and ensuring ethical outcomes. By embracing a balanced approach that combines the strengths of AI chatbots with human involvement, we can navigate the evolving landscape of AI technology and foster a future where AI benefits society in a responsible and inclusive manner.

The Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike reminds us that the media and entertainment industry must be braced for disruption at all times. Four weeks in, it remains unknown when and how writers and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) will reach a deal. But streamers can’t afford to wait.

While massive conglomerates can pull from their enormous libraries, others will have to shift gears and figure out how to monetize a potential shortage of content. The near future could be a particularly rocky road for companies that rely on scripted content, but finding fresh content is a potential struggle for everyone — exacerbated by an already downward trend in production budgets.  

The companies positioned to fare well, in hindsight, are those that commissioned unscripted shows and overseas productions earlier this year. Intentionally or not, they mitigated the impact of a writers’ strike. But those that don’t fall into that category shouldn’t despair. With the right strategies, audience engagement is possible. 

Advertising and Licensing Revenue

Beginning in 2020, a content shortage due to COVID-imposed production delays hastened the rise of ad-supported streaming. Viewers’ options exploded in the last few years as massive back catalogs were released to AVOD services and FAST channels.

While many FAST channels are built on older TV shows and movies, growing competition has encouraged companies to roll out original content as well. General entertainment, such as movies and series, is the largest genre on FAST; 53% of that content is drama and 47% is unscripted, according to Variety. 

Scripted linear programming will be hardest hit by an extended strike, which could further accelerate studios’ and networks’ shifts to streaming, whether through owned channels and services or expanded licensing. 

If the strike drags out, larger players like The Walt Disney Co. have the luxury of large libraries to compensate for revenues lost from less original content. They have the data and analytical wherewithal to generate value in licensing deals and similar negotiations, too. Companies with an M&A advantage, like Paramount Plus and Showtime, can likewise leverage significant content libraries, content that’s already in the pipeline, or content previously left off their streaming services as they also hold out against the strike. Others will pivot; Amazon recently announced plans to license originals outside its owned services for the first time, via the new Amazon MGM Studios Distribution unit.

Companies that don’t have that breadth of content or partners might not be so lucky. The strike could put enormous pressure on the ecosystem. As the supply of new original content dwindles and competition for audiences (and advertisers) intensifies, the real question for these streaming executives is, “How do I best monetize content in a fragmented revenue landscape?”

The sheer variety of strategies employed by AMPTP member companies and streaming services reveals that the answer varies. Finding it requires the capacity to identify which titles, series, and genres audiences would most watch for a given platform, region, or period of time — and knowing what to do with that information once it’s in hand.

Striking for Data

Data access tilts the power in this environment. A major point of contention between the AMPTP and the WGA is the WGA’s demand to “establish a viewership-based residual — in addition to existing fixed residuals — to reward programs” with “require[d] transparency regarding program views.” 

The writers contend that the current residuals formula, by which they are compensated based largely on the traditional linear model of total subscribership, fails to account for the complex economics of streaming. 

This echoes calls for transparency throughout the industry. In 2021, actor Scarlett Johansson settled a lawsuit against Disney over payments for the film Black Widow. Johansson alleged that Disney’s decision to release the film to streaming during its theatrical window, which Disney attributed to COVID theater shutdowns, was a breach of contract. Streaming viewership — and the residuals that could have resulted from it — had not been accounted for in her contract.

Studios, streamers and talent all understandably want to retain as much value as possible from their investments. That’s difficult given the dynamic, disruptive nature of the media and entertainment today. Collecting and validating payments such as viewership-based residuals would require streaming services to provide data that they are resistant to disclosing. It’s created tension with content sellers and licensors as well.  

An industry standard for “transparency” has yet to be defined, but all parties clearly agree that content data is an asset in this incredibly competitive, fast-moving market. Those who can access and analyze data have a leg up on those who don’t (or can’t). 

Lasting Impact

The media and entertainment industry is still experiencing the ripple effects of the 2007-2008 writers’ strike and the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential implications of the 2023 strike are similarly far-reaching:

• Data transparency disputes will take center stage, with streaming services reluctant to disclose what they consider proprietary metrics amidst rising demand from anyone with a revenue stake.
• SVOD churn and cord-cutting will continue apace or accelerate depending on economic winds and the content that is, or is not, offered.
• The growth rate for ad-supported models could also accelerate as unscripted content fills the gap, scripted content is made newly available and cash-conscious consumers take the free option. Conversely, if economic concerns restrict or reallocate ad budgets, media companies may find it difficult to drive profits through both linear and ad-supported streaming.
• Generative AI will become a point of increasing contention as large language models like ChatGPT create perceived threats and push the boundaries of innovation.

Most media companies have little say about when this strike will end or on what terms. But that doesn’t mean this can’t be a time to deploy a more resilient content strategy built on data.

Moving forward, power (in partnerships, licensing and advertising deals) will lean towards the company that has the clearest view of the data, including who is watching, when they watch and what they are watching. The strike has revealed just how critical content revenue and performance analytics are for the many changing distribution models in play.

This strike is about much more than data. But that’s a big part of it. The industry should take note — and action.

We know that consumer data sets are a valuable tool for businesses to understand, serve and target consumers. 

When accurate, consumer data can reveal information about behaviors, messaging preferences and purchasing habits, and increase precision targeting and ROI. But recent U.S. state privacy laws — while well-meaning — are starting to prohibit the collection of “sensitive” information, specifically around details like race and ethnicity, that can actually drive a more positive and relevant experience for every consumer.

It’s argued that removing ethnicity data is necessary to protect individual privacy and prevent discrimination. That’s a valid (and warranted) critique, but there’s also another side of the coin: Race and ethnicity data is essential to accurately represent diverse audiences.

For brands, agencies and publishers, race and ethnicity data is often used to target specific groups with marketing messages and products tailored to their interests and needs. Losing this information, certain communities may be inadvertently excluded or overlooked. That could mean both lost revenues for businesses and an overall lack of representation for various marginalized audience groups.

For instance, a beauty brand may want to target a variety of consumers — men and women, darker and lighter skin tones, etc. — with specific messaging. Losing ethnicity data means you’re potentially delivering the same message to a Hispanic man as you are to an Asian-American woman. Or perhaps a hair product is designed specifically for Black consumers’ needs. 

There’s a concentrated audience to speak to there, and without ethnicity data, it’s turning intentionally helpful targeting and customization into an unnecessary array of guesswork.

This is without even digging into the existing issues around race and ethnicity data that ultimately gets worse by simply cutting it out of data sets. At Truthset, we’ve found that 74% of ethnicity data for African-Americans consumers was accurate in Q4 2022. Just 78% was accurate for Asian-Americans and 89% was accurate for Hispanic Americans. Those numbers get almost twice as bad as source data passes through onboarding and modeling processes common in programmatic advertising. 

This informs us that there’s already an issue serving these audiences. So why are we willing to exacerbate this issue further?

Having access to race and ethnicity data can actually allow advertisers, agencies and publishers to address systemic marketing discrimination, identifying where blind spots and inequality have existed in the past to try and actively avoid it going forward. 

While we can put safeguards in place to prevent data from being used improperly, you could contend there’s a greater chance of addressing societal concerns around race (and other sensitive information) by quantifying proper representation of these populations.

This is growing increasingly crucial across many demographic and psychographic lines today as the monoculture largely breaks down. Knowing what is culturally relevant on a large scale could now represent just a quarter of the U.S. population — and perhaps a small subsection of a brand or publisher’s intended audience. Access to accurate ethnicity data helps fight tired ideas, opening doors for brands and consumers that may not have had a chance to thrive in the past.

There is more work to be done to ensure that ethnicity data is collected and utilized accurately and ethically. But the idea of that hard work shouldn’t preclude the advertising industry from doing so.

Working with state and federal regulators, the entire industry can plot a way forward that benefits all parties involved and makes sure that future privacy initiatives are both consumer-safe and act in the interest of serving consumers better experiences as well.

Standard General’s acquisition of some 60 broadcast stations from Tegna would create the nation’s largest minority-owned and woman-led broadcast company in U.S. history and enshrine historic jobs commitments and a neutrality agreement for all Tegna unions. In addition to an $8.6 billion investment in local media, the transaction supports Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Biden administration diversity goals. The transaction passed review unchallenged by the Department of Justice. However, it has been sidelined by the chair of the FCC, which controls the transfer of broadcast licenses. The deal has languished for more than 400 days, a record for the FCC which normally processes such rule-compliant TV license transfers in 182 days.

In March the FCC’s Media Bureau, with the support of chair Jessica Rosenworcel, referred the transaction to the Media Bureau’s administrative law judge on the issues of station staffing levels and retransmission fees for pay TV providers. This was unusual and something which has never happened for such a simple transaction. Moreover, the parties have already resolved these issues with agreements to maintain current station news staffing levels for at least three years following closing and the waiving of all contract rights that might have increased retransmission fees for pay TV providers from the transaction. Furthermore, these two issues — station staffing levels and retransmission fees for pay TV providers — are statutorily outside the FCC’s authority, a fact which the full commission itself has noted in every prior TV transaction in which these arguments have been raised.

One interpretation of the FCC chair’s action is that Democratic Party leaders want donor Byron Allen to win the deal (his first attempt to acquire Tegna fell apart), not Soo Kim, a Korean-American entrepreneur. So sending the deal to regulatory purgatory while the deadline to close the transaction expires (May 22) is a way to kill the deal without having to take a commission vote. GOP commissioners Carr and Simington have called for a vote in the meantime.

Outraged at the lack of fairness and progress on diversity goals, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), co-sponsor of the The Broadcast Varied Ownership Incentives for Community Expanded Services Act (Broadcast VOICES Act), threatened to hold up the reconfirmation of Democratic FCC member Geoffrey Starks if Rosenworcel doesn’t call for the vote. This would lead the FCC with two Republicans and one Democrat, chair Rosenworcel. Key civil rights and social justice groups Asian Americans Advancing Justice, National Action Network, National Urban League and UnidosUS have urged Rosenworcel and the FCC to take the vote. They do not ask for one outcome versus another, just that the process is served.

The FCC was chartered to protect the public interest in the transfer of telecommunications licenses. Its commissioners now have more information in front of them than any TV transfer transaction ever. The full commission has both the power and the obligation to execute FCC process for license transfers. A vote on the Standard General-Tegna deal would restore the trust which has been muddied by the ALJ mix-up. Sometimes democracy is just about taking a vote, rather than passing the buck.

Editor's note: The author has no relationship with the parties nor financial interest in the transaction.

The key to a strong and healthy democracy is an informed and engaged public. Receiving trustworthy and informative news — especially at the local level — is how we stay engaged.

A 2022 Gallup poll showed Americans have greater trust in local news than national news. That’s because we depend on local coverage to help us navigate issues like school closures, respond to emergency events and make choices about how we want to be governed.

But local news is facing a stiff headwind as it fights to remain viable in an environment where media consolidation is gutting newsrooms across the country. That is why Common Cause is opposed to gigantic hedge funds and investment groups taking over media outlets — because inevitably, they are in it to extract profits.

Right now, the hedge fund Standard General is promising that it will be the exception to the rule if it secures Federal Communications Commission approval to purchase Tegna, a media company with broadcast stations from Seattle to San Antonio. The FCC referred the case to an administrative law judge, which is usually the end of the line for mergers. But when the judge indicated a review of the proposed merger could not be completed in time to meet the financing deadline for the deal, Standard General-Tegna mounted an expensive public relations campaign, promising the world to certain groups to buy their support. When they had a chance to commit to those plans in its filings with the federal government, though, Standard General-Tegna did not present a shred of evidence that the deal would have any benefit to the public.

We have seen what happens when mega-conglomerates buy out companies. They slash jobs and mass-produce content. You can count on more car-chase stories and bear break-in videos.

Strip-mining for profits is what hedge funds do. They buy out companies, fire staff, sell off the profitable pieces and dump the rest.

Take for example The Los Angeles Times, my local paper. In 2007, when Sam Zell’s Equity Group, took control of The Tribune Co. and by extension, the Times, it cost over $8 billion. At the time, the Chicago-based investment group promised it would not cut newsroom jobs. By 2008, after multiple rounds of cuts, it was announced that a further 250 would lose their jobs.

That all turned around in 2018 when Patrick Soon-Shiong, a Los Angeles-based surgeon and cancer researcher, decided to purchase The Los Angeles Times. Under local ownership, the paper once again invested in local reporters, diversified the newsroom and rebuilt the California Section. Now, I can read about local businesses like Octavia’s Bookshelf working to bring Black authors to Pasadena’s only black-owned bookstore in honor of local author, and store namesake, Octavia Butler.

I can count on the kind of in-depth local reporting that uncovered secret tapes of Los Angeles City Council members scheming behind closed doors over redistricting lines. That coverage ignited a citywide debate over what we want our government to look like — one that may result in fundamental changes to redistricting, how we vote and what we expect of our elected representatives.

That’s the power of journalism that centers the communities they serve.

By contrast, the scorched-earth approach of hedge funds has long-term consequences on our democracy. Without an informed, engaged, and empowered citizenry, we won’t be able to tackle our collective challenges. When the public is uninformed, we have lower civic participation, lower voter turnout and greater political polarization.

When we don’t have a town square for deliberative democracy, people start wandering down dark alleys and political rabbit holes. The void left by local and ethnic media is so easily filled with disinformation.

The rapid decrease in local news should alarm everyone, especially heading into yet another consequential election year. With fewer resources to combat disinformation and hold power accountable, we have to do what we can to protect our local newsrooms.

There’s a reason that freedom of speech and the right to a free press are in the very First Amendment. Without a trusted platform for local voices, communities lose the ability to watchdog local government, hold leaders accountable, advocate for themselves, and bring awareness to issues that could never be adequately covered by a national outlet. Cities and communities lose the power of storytelling and collective problem-solving.

Quality local journalism is a public good. It’s right that the FCC takes its time to evaluate whether to approve another media consolidation. When it comes to our democracy, we can’t afford to sell it to the highest bidder.

Most Americans know they need a wire or wireless signal to connect a home or small business to the internet, a connection also known as the “last mile” of broadband. They may be less familiar with the so-called “middle mile” — the infrastructure that carries traffic between the global internet and your last-mile connection. 

Now, after Congress spent $42.5 billion in the infrastructure bill, $10 billion in Treasury funds in the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund, and potentially hundreds of billions more in other infrastructure funds to fill gaps in last-mile broadband availability, some policymakers are calling for even more money to subsidize middle-mile networks.

The definition of “middle mile” is vague. In fact, the government’s definition of middle-mile is so broad that it could plausibly include everything except the last wire that goes into the house. 

That’s the core of the problem. Because it is so difficult to precisely define “middle mile,” and therefore identify and measure its outcomes beyond simply being built, it’s hard for politicians and recipients of the money to resist their spending spree of federal funds regardless of whether it’s needed. More middle-mile funding can generate new construction and a ribbon-cutting ceremony, but nobody will ever know if it generated more broadband. 

While the access challenge is largely the last-mile problem of connecting those in rural and remote areas to existing networks, some additional, subsidized, middle-mile networks may be necessary to support new last-mile connections. But if there is such a need after the current rounds of spending, Congress must insist that supporters justify that need, set specific goals and find ways to measure outcomes to make sure that money is invested properly.

 For American taxpayers, history is a guide and a cautionary tale.

In 2010, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) distributed $3.4 billion in funds from the Recovery Act stimulus bill to middle-mile broadband projects. These projects were selected in an open-ended grant review process where cost efficiency was only one of many factors, such as political support, for distributing funds. These projects were not tracked beyond spending and construction, let alone evaluated on unit costs or market comparisons for materials, equipment, and labor. 

Thirteen years later, we do not know how many users or internet service proivders connect to those middle-mile deployments, or even whether the subsidized fiber is being used or sitting dormant today. More generally, the government has not examined whether the distribution of funds could have been improved.

My own research on Recovery Act spending is instructive. I found that the program was not cost-effective in terms of the number of additional broadband connections it funded. Ironically, critics of the study said my analysis was irrelevant because the grants were focused on middle-mile, not last-mile connections. But what is the purpose of a highway if not to connect to the roads where people live? When I asked my critics what they would propose to evaluate middle-mile projects instead, what did I hear? Crickets.

Whenever a recipient of a federal subsidy says evaluation is too difficult, alarms should go off. Taxpayers deserve a better response than “it’s hard to measure.” Proponents of middle-mile subsidies should not get a pass on explaining how they decide which projects to fund and how they will know whether those subsidies were effective. 

With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it’s not too much to ask for rigorous thought and oversight in broadband subsidy programs.

Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel should be commended for the agency’s careful decision to refer the effort by hedge fund Standard General and private-equity fund Apollo Global Management to take over broadcaster Tegna to an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the regulator. There, the facts can be clearly determined around the public-interest standards at stake, including localism, consumer prices, the impact on jobs and diversity of media ownership. 

I was proud when my organization, Public Knowledge, joined with labor unions, civil rights groups, public interest nonprofits, and multiple companies to raise questions about Standard General and Apollo taking over the nation’s second-largest local broadcast TV station owner, Tegna. For years our organizations have fought to stem the tide of media consolidation that is contributing to the gutting of newsroom staffs and the reduction in truly local content to meet the needs of diverse communities across our nation. 

Hedge funds have a history of stripping their new acquisitions down for parts to cut large costs quickly, including firing workers and scaling back operations. In the case of broadcast channels, hedge funds look to cut back on local news and other diverse, targeted programming in favor of national content. FCC filings have shown that this acquisition was structured in a complicated way in order for Standard General to enter into joint retransmission consent negotiations to increase costs for cable TV subscribers. These public interest concerns are always considered in FCC license transfers and certainly warrant a hearing with the agency’s administrative law judge. 

A fact-finding hearing in front of an ALJ makes sense if FCC staff feels it does not have full, accurate information, or a clear picture of the transaction. In addition to the concerns about loss of local content and media consolidation, all parties controlling broadcast licenses in the U.S. are subject to laws about ownership or control by non-U.S. citizens. Concerns over foreign ownership from Apollo Global Management’s stake in the deal must be addressed. Normally after an FCC referral to the ALJ, the parties trying to get a deal approved would withdraw their applications and maybe try again with a different deal structure. Not this time. Instead, Standard General, with a self imposed deadline of May 22 to close the deal, has engaged in an  expensive Washington smear and influence campaign that has become all too familiar around the FCC debates lately. 

In 2022 the public saw a bad-faith smear campaign about issues outside the FCC’s jurisdiction sink a nominee to the commission. Democratic elected officials failed to be unified behind seating a strong public-interest advocate at the FCC in response to this influence campaign. Now, in 2023, we’ve seen chair Rosenworcel’s FCC criticized by Democrats like Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) for simply following agency processes to get detailed answers about a major broadcast acquisition. In fact, Senator Menendez openly threatened the renomination of the only commissioner of color at the FCC, Geoffrey Starks, and by implication his own party’s ability to control the FCC agenda. Our hope is that such criticism and direct threats to the agency’s important consumer-protection work does not prevent the FCC from doing its investigation and making judgments based on the facts of the transaction. Now more than ever, Congress and the public need expert regulators protecting the public from tech and media consolidation. While we wait for Congress to create a regulator for dominant digital platforms, we already have an expert agency for media and telecommunications in the FCC. Its mandate to protect the public is clear and the debate around this transaction should focus on those protections and the transaction's details.

On this transaction, the Rosenworcel FCC has led with clear, simple process and standard questions. The timing may be difficult for Standard General, but that is their responsibility to adjust their transaction and timeline to fit the necessary review, not the other way around.

TV advertising is in the midst of a total transformation, driven by the prevalence of online streaming services that have led to a shift in consumer behavior and a new era of content consumption. Importantly, these streaming services are delivered by internet-connected TVs (CTVs), which provide for the first time the ability for TV content and advertising to be measured in a closed-loop system that enables the measurement of business outcomes that are associated with ad exposure, just like digital advertising. And as if this wasn't enough change for the TV industry, enter artificial intelligence (AI), which will accelerate the pace and scope of the TV industry’s transformation.  

For many decades, the TV industry has been relatively stable, with around $70 billion in revenue driven mostly by 500 or so major national advertisers making large ad buys based on “reach and frequency” and designed to drive awareness against target consumer demographics. The recent shift towards streaming services like Hulu, Roku and Peacock, coupled with the rise of connected TVs, has made TV just as measurable as online search and social advertising. New self-serve TV platforms have democratized access to TV, enabling millions of search and social performance advertisers to move into TV as a growth-driving medium. This shift is underway and will have a radical impact on the TV ecosystem.

AI will change the game yet again. With the help of AI, advertisers will be able to create TV-ready video ads by simply providing text inputs. AI algorithms will enable marketers to refine the ad and create multiple versions of the same ad with element-level differences, from major changes like an actor’s gender, color scheme or messaging, to more subtle alterations like frame rate, aspect ratio, types of clothing worn, volume, etc. Advertisers will be able to test multiple versions of ads on TV-buying platforms that provide feedback on exposure-to-outcome, to determine which combinations of creative elements drive the best performance (where performance equals outcomes like sales or return on advertising spend, or ROAS).

Moreover, TV buying and optimization platforms will use AI to optimize ads for outcomes, leveraging all versions of ad creatives in combination with an endless set of non-creative variables (such as context, audience profiles, daypart, frequency, etc.) to drive optimal results.  

Ultimately, creative development platforms will merge with TV buying and optimization platforms, enabling marketers to create TV ads with one-click simplicity, and then leverage AI systems to optimize creative and media buying using an endless set of variables.  This optimization approach, executed at the nexus of creative and real-time/programmatic TV buying, will transform TV from a reach and awareness medium into a powerful outcome-based medium, leveraging the unique TV attributes — sight, sound, emotion via large-screen, uncluttered delivery — to drive ads with higher impact and better ROI than any other advertising medium.  

AI is already accelerating the transformation of TV.  Within the next few years, TV will be accessible by millions of advertisers via democratized TV buying consoles that will be able to create ads, then deploy and optimize them using AI. The consequence will be a new TV advertising landscape that proves its value in a wholly measurable way.

Changes in the TV market in the last 12 months have been nothing short of breathtaking.

Streaming overtook linear TV for the first time in late 2022. All the major streaming services now have or are set to launch ad-supported offerings. Meanwhile, a staggering 82% of all U.S. households have at least one internet-connected TV and the average consumer subscribes to four services.

In short, TV is lit right now.

It’s also massively fragmented. Signals, supply chains and measurement methods are all over the map and getting more complicated all the time.

In our current media landscape, there are two principal drivers of change. On the one hand, new and forthcoming privacy standards (and the actions of platforms to comply with them) have deprecated the cookie and mobile IDs while giving rise to new categories such as customer data platforms (CDPs), clean rooms and alternative IDs. On the other hand, the rise of new channels like connected TV (CTV) and the shift toward omnichannel media consumption have forced marketers to seek new ways to target, buy and measure advertising while transforming their own workflows and operations.

Agencies, publishers, ad-tech companies and everyone in between have a vested interest in helping their partners navigate this newfound complexity. Fragmentation makes data, technology and services even more essential than ever before. When everything is broken into pieces that don’t talk to each other, the connective tissue becomes absolutely vital.

There are several things that are vital for overcoming the challenges posed by fragmentation and delivering value for brands and advertisers at scale, and your TV/CTV partner should be equipped with all of them: 

Converged media planner services (CMPs): These call for inventory recommendations on reach and frequency against audiences that media planners want to use. When you have fragmentation, it’s hard to optimize for reach or frequency, but a CMP can overcome that. 

Advanced currency providers (ACPs): Advanced currency providers are being offered adjacent to legacy Nielsen measurement for national TV. And Nielsen, Comscore, VideoAmp and iSpot are the tip of the measurement iceberg with more on the way; what matters are business outcomes, and advanced currencies aim to provide a better picture of those results and a good ACP provider will offer that. 

Analytics: Having brought all channels under one roof and united them into a single workflow, the next step is to seamlessly infuse every phase of the process with intelligence and analytics. Brands need to be able to harness their first-, second- and third-party data to resolve identities, build audiences, model lookalike audiences, and map audiences to an individual or household. From there, brands can activate those audiences across all channels in a privacy-safe way.

Deep linear and digital TV knowledge: This may surprise some people, but video advertising was not invented with the internet. The first TV ad ran in July 1941(!) and since then there have been 80-plus years of learning about what works and why that is massively relevant in an omnichannel world. Finding a provider who knows TV and digital will enable advertisers to be successful understanding audiences and driving engagement across formats.

TV advertising may be complex and fragmented, but it remains an essential communication channel for brands. With the right mix of services to overcome fragmentation, the convergence of TV and video represents an enormous opportunity for brands to connect with consumers in a truly omnichannel way — especially for advertisers that get there early.

FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel was right to back up the chief of her Media Bureau in February in ruling that hedge fund Standard General’s proposed takeover of Tegna’s 64 local news stations across 51 U.S. markets deserves further scrutiny. The $8.6 billion deal is being funded in part by the country’s largest private-equity firm, Apollo Global Management, which already controls another vast local TV chain, Cox Media Group.

We have already seen the detrimental effects that Wall Street control of local journalism produces — news deserts for local communities created by consolidation and even increases in government costs as a result of the lack of scrutiny over local deals.

Now, Wall Street funds like Apollo Global Management have turned their attention to broadcast TV, and it is crucial to determine if the Standard General-Tegna megamerger will serve the public interest, and not reduce coverage of local issues, impose viewpoints that are out of step with the community, or put jobs in local newsrooms at risk. Over 80% of Americans say they find local news coverage on television and radio to be most trustworthy. We must not violate that trust by ceding control of local news to a handful of hedge funds.

Standard General’s response to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for additional review should also raise alarm bells. The company’s managing partner, Soo Kim, reacted to the FCC’s decision to take a closer look by accusing the agency of an “unaccountable power grab,” claiming that “jobs and pricing are not technically issues that fall under the Media Bureau's jurisdiction” and even going so far as to challenge the constitutionality of how the FCC oversees broadcast licensing and telecommunications.

Wall Street investment firms like Standard General and Apollo have been at the root of local print journalism’s demise, buying newspapers and other news media, laying off journalists and selling off real estate and other remaining assets. Alden Global Capital, for example, eviscerated the Denver Post, the San Jose Mercury News and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, among many others. When Soo Kim wanted to attack the FCC for scrutinizing his hedge fund's takeover of Tegna, he turned to Alden’s network of newspapers, which published the exact same editorial in over a half-dozen of its supposedly local papers. This is exactly what the FCC is trying to prevent — an increasingly homogeneous media landscape dominated by the voices of the wealthy and powerful.

At a time when disinformation is threatening our democracy and the public is looking for greater transparency, accuracy and accountability from elected officials, it is critical that we protect journalism at the local level. We need more journalists covering local school boards, county governments, environmental disasters or corrupt politicians wasting taxpayer money, not fewer. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA), alongside our colleagues in America's largest labor union of journalists, The NewsGuild-CWA, took a stand for journalism and democracy and petitioned the FCC to reject the deal. We stood up against the greed of Wall Street with truth on our side and showed that contrary to their statements to the FCC, Standard General sold the deal to its bankers by specifying the local station jobs it would cut to increase profits.

We explained how Standard General and Apollo concocted a scheme to jack up rates paid by cable and satellite companies that would be passed onto consumers in the midst of a highly inflationary period. We won support from key members of Congress, such as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Energy and Commerce Committee chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). After an exhaustive, year-long proceeding, we were proud to see chair Rosenworcel take action in February.

In years past, the FCC has not given weight to arguments about whether buyers like Standard General and Apollo would cut costs by eliminating jobs and local programming. But “real-world experience,” they noted, should lead to questioning whether the acquisition of dozens of local broadcast news stations by private investment funds “would promote, hinder, or indeed, have no effect on localism.”

It matters when hedge funds and private-equity funds have control of our local news sources, and thankfully now, an FCC in-house judge will convene a hearing to get to the bottom of this complicated transaction.

Soo Kim can claim that the FCC has “denied due process,” but in fact, this is what it looks like.

Any experienced telecom practitioner can share the basic truth that from time to time the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) simply makes mistakes and occasionally even skirts outside the bounds of its legal authority. While generally well-meaning, the agency is not infallible and it can be overly aggressive to serve select agendas. 

To rectify this, there is a cherished right and longstanding practice that any party that has standing can challenge the commission to reconsider an action or petition the court to set aside a particular decision.  Sometimes these challenges have strong arguments and win; often, they do not. 

But what should concern everyone is when the FCC intentionally skews the process so much that objecting parties are procedurally prohibited from seeking any reasonable form of recourse.  A few weeks ago, the commission did just this.  By sidestepping the traditional determinative process, the agency’s staff, under newly found delegated authority, attempted to silently kill off the transfer of broadcast licenses between Tegna and Standard General. In essence, the highly-discredited and objectional procedure — known in FCC parlance as a Hearing Designation Order — attempts to send the application off on a slow boat to nowhere. Intentionally, this blatant process abuse likely will force parties to abandon their transaction without due process. If the commissioners themselves do not overturn this, which I have argued multiple times to allow delegated items to be brought before the full commission for a vote, I hope the court system will drop the red flag to restore fairness and justice.   

To understand the outrageousness of the HDO, it is important to consider the timing of its adoption.  While the commission moves glacially slow on so many matters, the transfer of licenses for broadcast television and radio stations tends to generate the strictest scrutiny and the longest delays. Applications involving media licenses can be delayed, bumping up against or exceeding the commission’s “aspirational” merger shot clock of 180 days. In the case of Tegna, the timeline has already stretched almost a full year. After multiple rounds of comment requests, the record was very complete, and it was essentially ready for a final decision. At the very last minute, the agency mic-drops the HDO under the guise of finding facts on select issues. 

Consider that if the agency wanted to explore the designated issues, it had almost an entire year to do so.  It previously publicly sought comment on applicants’ concessions for the very issues the HDO is supposedly exploring.  Further, knowing how critical timing was to applicants, it could have set a narrow but definitive window for the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to conduct her work.  Yet, it did neither. 

Having served at the commission for many years and having been involved in prior HDOs, the justification provided in this case is really fiction. It is common knowledge within the FCC and its  legal bar that the HDO process is a longstanding, bipartisan tool to kill transactions via the back door. It was that way under the commission of chairman Tom Wheeler, when it threatened to use it in the Comcast-Time Warner Cable application, and the same under the Ajit Pai commission’s use in the Sinclair Broadcast Group-Tribune Media proposed transaction.  The agency has an undefeated record of successfully executing HDOs, and in some cases merely suggesting its use to parties, to end mergers.  I refer to this process as a proverbial black hole as no entity ever escapes its clutches. To pretend an HDO in this instance is otherwise requires an immeasurable suspension of disbelief.

Critics of the merger may attack my views, suggesting I give no credence to the merits of their claims.  The truth is that the substance is given short shrift by the agency when it adopted the HDO. Had the commission used a legitimate process, it could have given the applicants direction to resolve or even adopt opponents’ positions with appropriate retransmission consent firewalls and exorbitant station budgets. Certainly, it’s not hard to craft strengthened concessions to sufficiently ameliorate the concerns raised, despite any personal objections I might have. And the agency could have set a time deadline for the hearing of 30 or 60 days, which could have worked for the applicants and their financiers. But the agency went silent, avoiding any communications over how to fix any perceived deficiencies in the application, and moved to launch an ALJ review without time limits.

FCC process reform has been a multidecade project for me, becoming a career priority, because I firmly believe that the American people expect government officials to be fair — in processes used and decisions made. Adoption of the HDO in the Tegna transaction is anything but.  Hopefully, this can be remedied before it’s too late, and certainly before the next time it is contemplated.   

Remember when everyone was obsessed with Tiger King? Or, more recently, as friends and family exhorted that you must start watching Yellowstone? Perhaps you, like millions of others, started Googling the cost of Peacock and Paramount Plus subscriptions (and possibly shopping for Stetsons). It’s happening again this month as the Oscar bump surrounding Everything Everywhere All at Once is driving a surge in streaming across Showtime and iTunes platforms. 

While the fervor surrounding these breakout hits has helped catapult more than a dozen different streaming services into the spotlight almost overnight, there are a couple of big problems hanging in the balance that should be keeping the purveyors of today’s hottest content awake at night. The hit show halo doesn’t last very long. Once the must-see mania surrounding the latest pop cultural phenomenon dies down, many streaming customers are left with a clunky, disjointed user experience that is widely perceived to be too expensive.

User data confirms this. According to J.D. Power data, many streaming-service customers pick and choose their subscriptions based on the content available. Nearly one-third (29%) of live TV streaming customers said they selected the provider because they had content they wanted to see compared with only 8% for cable/satellite TV subscribers. 

That’s fine when a highly anticipated original series like 1923 premieres, or when a box-office darling like Top Gun: Maverick is finally available at the push of a button, but it leaves streaming platforms susceptible to a wide ebb and flow in their subscription numbers when the content luster loses its shine.

Streamers Don’t Stick

While streaming customers are generally more satisfied with their experience than cable or satellite customers, these subscribers aren’t quite as likely to stick around for the long haul. This was clear when we asked why consumers subscribed to each individual service.

Overall, 61% of Paramount Plus subscribers, 55% of Discovery Plus homes and 52% of Peacock subs said they chose these platforms because they had content they wanted to see. These percentages were also high for Starz (49%), HBO Max (46%) and Netflix (45%). 

In comparison, just 29% said the same of Amazon Prime Video and 35% of ESPN Plus. These two services could be outliers for many reasons, specifically how subscribers interact with them. Prime Video is given free of charge to all Amazon Prime subscribers, a rite of passage for most households. And ESPN Plus is part of the Disney bundle that includes Disney Plus and Hulu, so many subscribers purchase all three for the monthly deal.

For others, it’s a tenuous position in which no one — not even a platform as ubiquitous as Netflix — is exempt from widespread subscriber volatility. Between paying for content — both legacy and original — customer acquisition, infrastructure and a host of other unseen costs, most services are squarely in the red. The only antidote to those losses is padding the subscriber count, and with customers constantly being swayed by the latest hits, the recipe for steady, consistent growth remains unclear. 

Meanwhile, the very business model that gave birth to many of today’s biggest hits is being challenged as streaming services and Hollywood studios cut back on programming and shelve many small-to-mid-budget projects. Together, the simultaneous trends of streaming service proliferation and austerity measures in Hollywood are putting an increased reliance on a handful of blockbuster hits that is likely to severely limit the number of streaming services who can survive for the long haul.

Earning More Loyalty

The nature of streaming isn’t likely to change all at once, but there are incremental steps services can take to combat some of this volatility. 

For starters, user interfaces need to be more intuitive and universal. According to our data, the user interface is exceedingly important to live TV streaming customers, consistently ranked among the top three most important key performance indicators. Eliminating the steep learning curve that comes from getting acclimated with a new streaming service would go a long way to addressing some of customers’ most common pain points. 

Even more than a clean interface, streaming services need to find a way to provide value at their price point. A la carte television hasn’t quite lived up to the promises of a decade ago, where customers would be able to pick and choose their content and save money along the way. More than half (56%) of live TV streaming customers in the U.S. say they choose their plan because of price, and it’s not uncommon for streaming customers to have more than one subscription. As these platforms contemplate a crackdown on password sharing and continue to make content decisions that are grounded more in their bottom line than making compelling television for their customers, services run the risk of leaving those customers feeling like their dollar isn’t stretching quite as far.

Back to the Future

As the industry is inching to a tipping point, it feels like the future of streaming is in transition. As parent companies quickly try to recoup losses by propping up ad-supported models — making the future of television look an awful lot like the past — customers may become more discerning about their monthly streaming allotment. 

That means that a competitive field is going to get a lot more cutthroat. While content will always be king, the platforms that listen to their customers and meet them where they are will have an easier time navigating the uncertainty. And in an era of consolidation, that might make all the difference between existing five years from now and not.

The movie Prom Pact, about high school students fretting about the prom, debuted on Disney Channel March 30, and starts on Disney Plus March 31. The main character, Mandy, for her part, thinks more about getting into Harvard than going to the prom. 

If you think you’ve seen a main character obsessed with going to Harvard before, you probably have. Rory from Gilmore Girls spoke endlessly of getting into Harvard, often from a bedroom decked out in Harvard posters. Her frenemy at Chilton Preparatory School, Paris, was perhaps even more obsessed with Harvard. In Legally Blonde, Reese Witherspoon’s Elle Woods sees getting into Harvard Law as the only way to win back boyfriend Warner. 

Other Harvard grads in the scripted TV world include Rebecca from Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Thurston Howell III from Gilligan’s Island, Miranda from Sex and the City and Frasier Crane from Cheers and Frasier. 

Back in 2018, the Harvard Crimson wrote in “Hollywood’s Harvard Problem,” “Viewers find movies and shows infused with the Harvard brand name so compelling because a character’s ability to attend Harvard marks them as having a superhuman affinity for rising above their circumstances. Elle Woods graduates at the top of her class, and viewers rejoice because she’s intellectually surpassed the ex-boyfriend for which she was much too good. Though she ends up choosing Yale, Rory Gilmore is accepted to Harvard, fulfilling a lifelong dream after overcoming a pitiable start at an academically rigorous private school. More importantly, both do so relatively unscathed. Rory and Elle both struggle, but their Harvard storylines culminate with them giving graduation speeches to their classmates.”

While Harvard serves as a shorthand for the best of the best in education, and a character who’s scary-smart, one wonders if some other colleges deserve to be obsessed over by these aspiring characters. Like Stanford, or Yale, or perhaps even a respectable state school. US News & World Report, for its part, had Princeton at No. 1 in 2022-2023 and MIT at No. 2, with Harvard, Stanford and Yale tied for No. 3. 

I’ve seen a few articles about how high school students are not as obsessed with top-notch, and very expensive, colleges as they used to be. The so-called Varsity Blues scandal, which saw wealthy people, some of them famous (Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin), bend and break the rules to get their children into elite schools, turned some students off the Herculean efforts to get into the most prestigious colleges. Others see it as not worth the exorbitant tuition. 

“This generation–Generation Z, Generation Alpha–has been discouraged from higher education being the be-all and end-all,” said Linda Ong, founder and CEO of consulting firm Cultique. 

High schoolers are less interested in college in general. Undergraduate enrollment dropped 8% from 2019 to 2022, reported PBS NewsHour. “At worst, it could signal a new generation with little faith in the value of a college degree,” it said. “At minimum, it appears those who passed on college during the pandemic are opting out for good. Predictions that they would enroll after a year or two haven’t borne out.”

Julie Bowen, an executive producer on Prom Pact, said the producers got a note from Disney during development, saying, why Harvard, why does Harvard matter? Bowen, who played Claire on Modern Family, said Mandy’s dream is to learn from a specific professor who is based on a Harvard one, but who has been fictionalized to make it more “Disney friendly” and legally sound. “There are these wonderful professors and wonderful programs you can only access at certain schools,” said Bowen, herself a Brown grad. “This happens to be one that is at Harvard. That is the Why Harvard? of it all.”

Mandy, who is played by Peyton Elizabeth Lee, explains to her guidance counselor why she’s obsessed with Harvard: “Because Harvard is the best school in the world. And Harvard is where my hero, development economist, Dr. Ingrid Downs, went. And Harvard is where she is a tenured professor.”

Mandy added that Dr. Downs “mentors young women like me who want to change the world for the better.”

Bowen said Harvard continues to be an effective shorthand for screenwriters and producers. “Harvard still stands for something worldwide,” she said. “It’s a brand name that people strive for. When you’re trying to shortcut that kind of excellence, it’s a great brand name to use.”

Alas, Mandy finds out she’s on the waiting list at Harvard. “It’s over,” she said to Ben, played by Milo Manheim. “Harvard, Dr. Downs, saving the world, my life–it’s over.”

She added, “Harvard was supposed to be the place. My place!”

Mandy crashes into her guidance counselor’s office to tell her she’s on the waiting list. 

“Maybe it’s finally time to start to discuss backup schools,” the counselor, played by Margaret Cho, said.

But Mandy’s not hearing it. She devises an elaborate scheme that involves tutoring the star athlete and heartthrob in her grade, who’s father is a senator, and Harvard grad. 

Does it work? Does Mandy get in?

You have to watch Prom Pact to find out. ■

Careers are interesting things. When you start out, you don’t really know what you are doing, and nobody works for you, but you invariably work for lots of people. You learn by doing, watching, getting it right and getting it wrong. And, if you’re lucky, through the help of your colleagues and leaders, you start to grow. Slowly, we amass the skills and insights necessary to progress whether that means into management or more deeply as an individual contributor. Throughout the process, consciously or unconsciously, we’re always learning. 

Over the 20-plus years I’ve been in advertising — through my work, network, and great organizations like IRTS Foundation, She Runs It and NAMIC — I’ve had the opportunity to speak with lots of groups and individuals about the things I have learned on my journey. When I talk with people just starting out, inevitably a lot of questions come up around how to navigate a career, especially in an industry that is constantly changing. One of my recent mentee groups asked me to write some of those lessons down. It’s a long list but I am eager to try “pay it forward” by sharing more broadly 26 lessons learned or actionable insights that hopefully resonate.

I would be remiss not to include here a big thank you to all the colleagues, friends, mentors, and allies that have been and continue to be my teachers — generously sharing their wisdom with me. 

1. It’s the professor, not the class. The people you work with and for will make or break your happiness and long-term success more than any other factor. Choose wisely.
2. You become successful by making other people successful. That means your customers, team, boss, peers, colleagues, partners, etc.
3. If you feel like you don’t fit in, remember that what makes you different is a source of unique (and needed) value.
4. Time is a finite resource. Make good choices about where and with whom you spend yours.
5. Don’t compromise on operating with integrity and respect for others and yourself.
6. Never underestimate your (or another’s) ability to learn new things so long as you (or they) are willing to make a sincere and sustained effort.
7. Wisdom comes from unexpected sources and in unexpected packaging. Strive to be an avid reader and active listener; there is something you can learn from every conversation, person, or experience.
8. Take care of yourself and others. Give yourself and others grace and kindness. We’re all only human.
9. Take the enterprise view. It immediately elevates you, your thinking and your work.
10. Learn to be a good storyteller. Humans are wired for narrative, and a story is much more memorable, compelling and shareable than a collection of data or facts. 
11. There is huge value in simplifying. This also applies to communication. Strive to use less jargon, fewer words or metrics, and shorter lists (I am breaking my own rule here!).
12. Your actions and how you consistently show up every day will define your experience more than what you studied, where you went to school, what company you work at, what your job title is.
13. You are the steward of your own experience and career.
14. You can lead from any level or position. If you want a bigger platform, start with the one you are standing on. Choose how you show up. Leaders think about what groups and teams need and contribute in ways that are additive. An act of leadership can be as simple as the energy and body language you bring into a meeting.
15. Being able to disagree with someone or critique something openly, productively, constructively and keep the conversation positive, is a valuable skill. Find low-stakes (maybe even non-work-related) ways to practice because there is no other way to get better.
16. Bravery isn’t the absence of fear, it's feeling fear or discomfort and doing something anyway. Have hard conversations, try new things, take risks, own your mistakes and ask directly for what you want. The more comfortable you are being uncomfortable, the more possibilities you unlock. 
17. Change is constant, suffering is optional (hat tip: Doug Weaver).
18. You can negotiate just about anything, so long as you have two rational parties. If you don’t have two rational parties, you’ll have to find another solution.
19. There is always another bus. Don’t focus on the setback, deal you didn’t close, job you didn’t get, etc. for too long. Look for any lessons. Remember it’s not always about you. Throw yourself a tightly timed/finite pity party if you need it and then move forward.
20. If you don’t know what to do about something, take a break. Go for a walk, grab a bite, sleep on it, talk it through it with a trusted person or all of the above. Clarity will find you.
21. “Everything will be OK in the end. If it’s not OK, it’s not the end.”
22. A great professional network is one that goes up, down, across and beyond your direct function.
23. Sometimes you just have to let things play out. One of my favorite people shared this important lesson in a memorable joke, the punchline being “Look, the czar could die, the dog could die, lots could happen … it’ll work itself out.”
24. Test, learn, iterate. And when you make mistakes, which you will because we all do, do your best to ensure they are new ones.
25. Whether you’re building a relationship or navigating a hard problem, a moment of genuine levity or humor can make things inordinately easier. 
26. Just breathe. You are enough, and you’ve got this. ■

These days, technology-advanced farms are just as reliant on broadband connectivity as any other modern business. Sensors, automation, autonomous vehicles and other “precision agriculture” tools bring greater efficiencies and productivity to many American farmers, who literally help feed the entire world. The Farm Bureau projects that more widespread adoption of these broadband-enabled best practices could boost U.S. agricultural productivity by $65 billion per year. 

That’s a big reason why Congress is investing in a multitude of federal programs to ensure internet access is available to all corners of our nation, especially households, businesses and farms in rural communities.

One of those initiatives — the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural eConnectivity Program, or ReConnect — is due for some key improvements as Congress considers the upcoming Farm Bill. The adoption of targeted reforms Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) have proposed in the Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2023 would be a smart and thoughtful place to start. 

The ReConnect program has been a bit of an anomaly since its 2018 inception. Initially funded as a one-time pilot project, the program has been extended annually without traditional guardrails or oversight. That has generated some inconsistencies, coordination difficulties and troubling outcomes. For instance, the program’s grant approval process, which fluctuates year to year, functions completely outside the Administrative Procedure Act, preventing interested parties from even commenting on the decision making. And those decisions deserve review. 

Improving ReConnect, however, must begin with making sure its funding reaches the rural communities that truly need it.  Just about everyone agrees that scarce federal funds must go to ensuring everyone has internet coverage, rather than subsidizing “overbuilds” in areas where fast connectivity already exists.  Every dollar spent overbuilding current networks fails to help needier rural communities gain modern digital infrastructure. 

Yet the overbuilding threshold for ReConnect has at times been lowered from 90% of households without internet in the area (arguably still objectionable) to 50% of households without Internet, which means half of the project would overbuild existing broadband. Why? No sound reasons were provided when it was last modified as part of the infrastructure spending bill. Thankfully, the Rural Internet Improvement Act restores the 90% target and focuses on building networks capable of commonly accepted broadband speeds. If this simple but fundamental correction can’t be made, efforts to codify a flawed ReConnect should be considered a non-starter. 

Likewise, the bill precludes funding for areas already covered by other federal broadband efforts and boosts the provider challenge process. For years, policymakers have demanded coordination from the differing federal broadband programs.  Why in the world should USDA fund broadband buildouts in areas that have already secured Federal Communications Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Treasury Department or other federal funds for the same purpose?  Even the most ardent supporter of ReConnect should blush at the notion of double-dipping. 

Equal Opportunities

Additionally, the Rural Internet Improvement Act moves the program onto more solid ground so all qualified participants can apply and have an equal chance to win grants based on objective criteria. So far, whole broadband industry segments that have met of all the program’s qualifications haven’t won a single dime. The probability of this happening is about the same statistically as a cat successfully driving a tractor. 

A fair ReConnect process does not undercut the likelihood of telephone and electric co-ops, which have been primary beneficiaries of the current structure, from winning where they are the most qualified and prepared to bring service. Policymakers certainly don’t need to tilt the process in co-ops’ favor from the outset. In fact, my long history with telephone co-ops suggests that they are exceptionally capable and attune to rural community needs to do quite well in an impartial application process. This is likely why NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, an advocate for telephone cooperatives, has been favorable towards the bill, as have others. 

In a perfect world, there shouldn’t be a need to maintain a separate broadband grant program within the Department of Agriculture. For various reasons, policymakers have determined that ReConnect should remain, and I won’t quibble with that decision here. 

But if ReConnect is to continue, then we should expect that it be run fairly and efficiently, target those rural citizens in need, not overbuild areas where existing private sector providers offer service of sufficient quality, and prevent duplicative subsidies for broadband builds already being funded by other federal agencies. Solidifying and codifying these principles is exactly why the Rural Internet Improvement Act would bring credibility and sustainability to any broadband provisions continued in the eventual 2023 Farm Bill. ■

In early February, U.S. House Republicans read the Constitution on the House floor following through on a Twitter pledge Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made after the GOP won control of the chamber last year. This dramatic recitation included the 45 words of the First Amendment — ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

Yet within a matter of days, the new chairman of the GOP-led House Oversight Committee, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), made clear that he had threatened executives at DirecTV and AT&T, which retains a majority ownership stake in the satellite provider, to put Newsmax back on its scheduled lineup, “or else.”

Newsmax currently is not part of DirecTV’s menu of available channels, because, as explained in a company statement, “On multiple occasions, we [DirecTV] made it clear to Newsmax that we wanted to continue to offer the network, but ultimately Newsmax’s demands for rate increases would have led to significantly higher costs that we would have to pass on to our broad customer base.” For viewers, Newsmax still remains available through an even-wider video distribution platform, since nearly 300 Americans can continue to access it online for free through the Newsmax website.

This matter is a good-faith business dispute between two private companies, with no role to be played by chairman Comer. Nevertheless, Comer has made his threat to apply pressure to DirecTV and AT&T through the commencement of possible Congressional hearings. During a recent Newsmax interview with host John Bachman, he said, “So I think if anyone has ever watched the House Oversight Committee, any of our first three hearings, they have to ask themselves, do you really want to go in front of the House Oversight Committee? Because this is something that the 26 Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are very passionate about. We’re all huge fans of Newsmax.”  

Put simply, it is inconsistent with the Constitution to impose programming preferences through congressional strong-arming. This bedrock principle should be applicable for any type of programming that politicians of all political leanings might wish to mandate for a particular video distribution outlet. The potential involvement of the House Oversight Committee to undermine freedom of speech and of the press suggests that reading and honoring the First Amendment, instead of just reciting it aloud, would be the more meaningful course of action for House Republicans. ■

The world is undergoing a digital transformation and it is revolutionizing the media industry. In this age of information, producing high-quality content quickly is essential, and the pressure is on for media organizations to keep up with the pace of change.

One technology that is making waves in the industry is OpenAI's ChatGPT. Launched in November 2022, it has already amassed over 100 million users within just two months. Its advanced natural language processing (NLP) capabilities have made it a go-to technology for content creation, virtual assistants, and audience engagement. With Microsoft and Google investing billions in this technology, conversational AI is poised to become a game-changer for the future of the media industry.

ChatGPT is a prime example of a technology that follows the McLuhan tetrad law. This law is a framework for analyzing the impacts of technology on society. The tetrad law comprises four questions: What does the technology enhance? What does it make obsolete? What does it retrieve that was previously obsolesced? And what does it reverse or flip into when pushed to its limits?

The first question is, what does ChatGPT enhance? ChatGPT is a powerful and efficient tool that can significantly enhance content creation for media organizations. Its advanced NLP technology allows it to analyze vast amounts of data and generate insights, trends and patterns that can be used to create engaging and high-quality content. ChatGPT can be informative in increasing the diversity of content by offering new perspectives and angles that may not have been considered. ChatGPT can speed up content creation by automating routine tasks like summarizing news articles and creating headlines, freeing up time for editors to focus on more important and complex tasks. These advantages can lead to increased productivity and efficiency, ultimately resulting in more engaging and relevant content for media organizations’ audiences, saving valuable time and resources. 

The second question is, what does ChatGPT make obsolete? ChatGPT has the potential to reduce the need for humans to perform translations and transcriptions from scratch by offering near real-time and personalized capabilities. By supporting 95 languages and leveraging signal-processing technology, ChatGPT enables faster and more efficient repurposing of content for global audiences. However, it's important to recognize that ChatGPT’s translations may not always accurately convey the intended meaning, particularly with complex or context-dependent texts. Therefore, ChatGPT is not a complete replacement for human translators and transcribers since they can offer unique insights and cultural nuances that are difficult to capture. 

The third question is, what does ChatGPT retrieve that was previously obsolesced? Through the use of natural language processing and context recognition, ChatGPT can retrieve and enhance discursive communication that traditional one-way communication has diminished. Its ability to simulate natural conversation encourages open-ended dialogue and prompts further discussion, fostering greater understanding and collaboration between “individuals.” Its power as a virtual assistant has the potential to create a positive impact on many aspects of society. Its ability to facilitate more effective and meaningful conversations is unparalleled, and it brings back the value of conversational communication.

The fourth question is, what does ChatGPT reverse or flip into when pushed to its limits? ChatGPT’s potential reversal when pushed too far is the production of homogeneous and unoriginal content. The lack of diversity and creativity in the content could result in homogeneous thinking and behavior in society, limiting cultural diversity. Media organizations that rely too heavily on ChatGPT to produce content are at risk of creating unengaging and monotonous content.

To prevent the potential danger of homogeneity, media organizations must find a way to balance ChatGPT’s efficiency with human creativity and expertise. Human writers can help enhance the content produced by ChatGPT, providing a nuanced understanding of culture and creativity that AI language models currently lack. This approach requires media organizations to acknowledge the limitations of AI language models and recognize the importance of human expertise in producing high-quality content.

The advantages of ChatGPT in the media industry are clear. With its ability to generate human-like text, media companies can create high-quality, diversified and interactive content quickly and efficiently. As the digital transformation continues, conversational AI, such as ChatGPT, can provide a range of benefits for media companies. We must adapt to stay relevant and competitive in a rapidly changing media landscape. ■

Chicken Little alarms were recently voiced in the U.S. Supreme Court that eliminating or narrowing the immunity from suit social media platforms enjoy for third-party postings under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would cause the sky to fall on their operations. Based on oral arguments held on February 21 and 22, the twin cases, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, are likely to leave the blanket immunity for social media behemoths completely or virtually undisturbed. 

What’s wrong with this picture?

I am a small business owner of broadcast properties valued at a miniscule fraction of Google’s $1.16 trillion current capitalization or Twitter’s $41 billion. Yet I have no liability immunity for defamations broadcast on my programs or properties. Ditto for newspapers or other social-media competitors. We buy libel insurance. Why can’t Google and Twitter do the same? Why should these giants be given a leg up under Section 230? Isn’t that like giving Secretariat a head start over competitors at the Kentucky Derby in 1973?

Section 230 was passed in 1996 when social media was in its infancy. It was speculated that without legal immunity from defamation, invasion of privacy, or related tort claims for third-party postings on their digital platforms, social media companies would capsize into bankruptcy.  But no proof or logic was forthcoming. It was a postulate without proof either then or in the ensuing 27 years.

The relevant text reads as follows:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

In contrast, newspapers, broadcasters, cable companies and satellite transmitters are subject to liability for content provided by third parties. But the law, liability insurance and the practicalities of litigation provide formidable defenses that adequately protect against adverse judgments or insolvency leaving a wide margin for free speech. None of these industries have become insolvent from tort liability.

The Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) and its progeny has erected virtually insurmountable First Amendment barriers to successfully suing public officials or public figures for defamation, invasion of privacy or similar speech. A plaintiff must shoulder the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant published a false statement of fact with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not. Opinions are completely off-limits. And simple negligence in publishing a falsehood does not trigger liability. The defendant must be shown to have entertained a conscious awareness that the allegedly offensive publication contained a defamatory fact.

Moreover, defamation damages must be proven. But loss of reputation characteristically finds expression in business that never surfaces. Proving such a negative is commonly insurmountable.

Even more important, plaintiffs are ordinarily reluctant to sue to avoid providing a free and ruinous judicial platform for further distribution of the defamatory falsehood. Defamation suits are customarily costly and lengthy because proving the state of mind of the publisher and the reputation of the plaintiff is complex. A plaintiff’s entire life, warts, skeletons and all, are fair game in discovery. Unless you’re a saint, a defamation lawsuit may further ruin your brand. Thus, President Franklin Roosevelt persuaded his chief emissary Harry Hopkins to refrain from suing the Chicago Tribune for a story likening him to Rasputin, villainous courier to Tsar Nicholas and Tsarina Alexandra. 

It is unsurprising that successful defamation or invasion of privacy suits against traditional media are extremely rare, like unicorns. Even a wealthy plaintiff like Sarah Palin was crushed in her defamation suit against The New York Times in Palin v. New York Times Company (2020).

Even before the constitutional protections of New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny were inaugurated, tort liability judgments against traditional media were few and far between. Take investigative journalist Drew Pearson, whose “The Washington Merry-Go-Round” appeared daily from 1932 to 1969. He won 119 of 120 libel cases. None deterred his muckraking columns as chronicled in Donald Ritchey’s Leaks, Lies, and Libel in Drew Pearson’s Washington.

Repeal of Section 230 would still leave social media platforms with the thick layers of constitutional protections enjoyed by traditional media that have safeguarded free speech, viewpoint diversity, and aggressive scrutiny of government. Even if the section was plausibly justified at birth 27 years ago because social media was embryonic, it is as obsolete today as the horse and buggy. Repeal will not cause the sky to fall. It would create an even playing field with social media giants still inheriting a competitive advantage from the twenty-seven years of liability immunity they have already enjoyed under section 230. I would wager that if the section were repealed, the impact on the stock prices of Twitter, Facebook and Google or their parent companies would be tiny. To believe otherwise is to believe Chicken Little. ■

Free ad-supported TV (FAST) is quickly moving from fringe to mainstream in the race to displace traditional cable with over-the-top (OTT) and connected TV (CTV) services, and with good reason: consumers will not pay for all their TV content.

Today, FAST provides a familiar linear viewing experience for consumers while enabling rightsholders to more widely distribute content and unlock increased ad revenue opportunities. Many rightsholders utilize FAST as a cost-effective way to maximize audience reach by monetizing a relevant part of their catalog content. For advertisers, the growing streaming model is equally as enticing, providing them with a highly targeted way to reach viewers at scale.

FAST viewership hours more than doubled in 2021. Fueled by an influx of new premium content, growing audiences and fresh advertising dollars, the FAST market in the United States is poised to reach 216 million monthly active users in 2023, according to a study from nScreenMedia. 

\With 92% of U.S. households reachable via CTV open programmatic advertising, CTV is a scarce and coveted ad positioning for advertisers in the marketplace today. According to a 2022 CTV/OTT Advertiser Study from Advertiser Perceptions and Premion, 25% of respondents called CTV/OTT the most valuable media type in 2021, and 84% said the inventory is at least as valuable as primetime TV. As such, CTV ad spend is expected to increase by 22% in 2022.

It’s important that content owners and rightsholders be strategic in growing their FAST business so they can fully capitalize on the platform’s benefits and increase their value to advertisers. Here are three prongs to a successful FAST plan of action:

1.) Clearly define your content strategy. Be strategic about the content package you offer viewers on FAST services. Why this content, why in FAST? If you’re a sports league, for example, at this current moment it’s likely not smart to put your top-tier live games on FAST, but you can strategize about how to leverage catalog content to create a compelling consumer experience in a linear format.

2.) Promote discoverability. FAST channels don’t adhere to the “if you build it, they will come” ideology. Driving viewers to your FAST channel is a deal-making and marketing challenge. Be thoughtful about how you’re working with FAST service partners to get promotion and valuable placement on the screen and within their programming guide. You should also be leveraging your own channels, such as social media, to alert your audience about your FAST offerings. If you don’t focus on building an audience across your FAST ecosystem, you won’t.

3.) If you haven’t already, get involved now. FAST in its current state is reminiscent of the early days of YouTube; right now, there’s still tremendous opportunity to build your audience and establish your brand without competition from all angles. In the next 12 to 18 months, content owners and rightsholders should have a strategy to incorporate FAST into their media mix alongside social, licensing, and OTT plays. With seismic shifts expected in the FAST arena in the next 24 months, content owners joining the game too late could face limited FAST inventory and end up at the mercy of FAST platforms’ requests for content rather than driving their own channel placement and scheduling.

The Future of FAST

The TV ecosystem is undergoing unprecedented change. Will the future of TV consist of a combination of FAST services, a few bespoke SVOD/AVOD apps, and aggregation/bundled services? Perhaps. It’s likely to somewhat resemble what we have today, albeit in a more convenient content delivery method. As with any entertainment model transitioning from fringe to mainstream, it takes the big content owners and rights holders to come in and cement that model’s viability and positioning in the marketplace. We are seeing this happen very quickly with FAST.

As FAST offerings continue to increase their share of entertainment time, rights holders will flock to engage viewers with not just catalog material but, increasingly, fresh, premium content. It’s possible we’ll start to see top-tier content like live sports games on FAST channels, akin to a free-to-air partner today, in the not-so-distant future. For rightsholders and advertisers alike, FAST is ripe with opportunity and worth exploring as a key part of your direct-to-consumer business. ■

When the World Cup had its memorable run in Qatar, I enjoyed watching the matches like everyone else. But honestly, I was much more focused on the technical aspects of the viewing experience for fans worldwide. That’s because I was leading the product management team at a streaming analytics technology company that works with FIFA and with broadcast companies such as Disney, NBCUniversal and Univision and over-the-top platforms like Hulu. The same will be true this Sunday for Super Bowl LVII between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles. 

Given the magnitude of the Super Bowl and the 11.2 million households that streamed the game last year instead of watching it on traditional broadcast or cable TV, let’s take this opportunity to acknowledge how far live streaming has come, especially for sports. Back in 2000, Fox experimented with an industry first, attempting to “webcast” — as it was called at the time — a college football game between Nebraska and San Jose State. It was a buffering nightmare, which is understandable for an era when households used low-bandwidth dialup modems to connect to the internet. Today, our industry can be proud of how far the streaming experience has advanced in the 20-plus years since then. 

During the World Cup final, we saw a peak number of nearly 22 million concurrent viewing sessions, which more than doubled the 9 million that watched via the internet four years earlier. These numbers represent the tremendous pressure events of this magnitude place on publishers to deliver a seamless viewing experience. Not to mention that NFL games were live-streamed as the World Cup took place, adding complexity to back-end planning for viewer surges that could cause screens to buffer or pixelate. Any sports fan will know that missing even a small part of the action because of a technical glitch is tremendously irritating.

Such an experience — if it had occurred — would’ve been unacceptable during the World Cup. Fortunately, that wasn’t the case, and the publishers of the 2022 soccer extravaganza met or exceeded customers’ expectations.  

Super Bowl LVII is also being approached with a customer-centric mindset. Here’s an educational, behind-the-scenes look at how it’s technologically possible to live stream the Big Game and other sporting events to millions of people across multiple device types and models, operating systems, broadcast networks and content delivery networks (CDNs). 

Forecasting Ebbs and Flows (and Surges)

The athletes participating in the Super Bowl have been getting ready for this game for months. It takes a similar commitment and level of preparation to live stream the game to millions of people, ensuring every single one gets the excellent fan experience they expect. Given the complexity and just one chance to get it right, it’s mission-critical to anticipate the unexpected ways things can go off course with a live video stream.

The World Cup spanned 28 days and entailed 20-plus streaming companies. It involved more than six months of planning for expected peak concurrent plays (PCP) and preparing contingencies for anything that could disrupt the viewer experience. Because we’ve been able to leverage those learnings and the work of more than a decade powering the world’s most prestigious live sporting events, our meticulous Super Bowl LVII preparations have been more streamlined, taking just two months.  

The ability to effectively plan for unpredictable events starts with historical data, mainly the Super Bowl streaming viewer data from past years. Data is also incorporated from the recent World Cup. which is a helpful baseline for the Super Bowl. Even though the Big Game is more of a North American phenomenon, they are both global events with high concurrent view rates. Forecasters can ensure they model enough resources to handle the Super Bowl's traffic surges thanks to what they learned from the World Cup.

Streaming partners also input their recent historical traffic data to bolster the modeling. Then, it’s essential to factor in typical internet usage overall during the Super Bowl and how that might impact people’s ability to have the viewing experience they expect.  

Potential surges can be challenging to predict, but this intelligence is essential given that viewership ebbs and flows during a live event. For example, not everyone will begin watching right at the coin flip on Sunday. Several minutes or more may elapse before the peak number of concurrent viewers (PCV) is reached. At halftime, viewership can shift up or down dramatically as people pause or close their player. As the real-time, first-party data comes in from the streaming platforms and our sensors — integrated into each platform’s video player or app — this intelligence informs needed adjustments on the fly to improve the viewing experience. For instance, despite having the best traffic calculations available during the World Cup, we saw ad traffic spike unexpectedly during halftime on a day with relatively low overall traffic. So, we reverted to manual scaling capacity and continued this before each game for the rest of the World Cup. That level of preparation paid dividends during the final match, which pushed many of our subsystems to their limit. We had predicted traffic for the match would be between 18 million and 19 million. In the end, there were almost 22 million viewers! 

These are the types of situations that professionals behind the scenes will be ready to handle this Sunday, improving the Big Game viewing experience in real time. Speed is crucial. If there is buffering or pixelation that will create bad viewer experiences, the broadcaster and its partners have to know about it instantly and fix it quickly. If that vital data does not flow in real time, phone calls are made. It takes a team behind the scenes to keep the viewing experience going without a major hitch.

Validating via Rigorous Testing 

 Long before the game begins, a staggering amount of technology infrastructure needs to be implemented to support a streaming event at the scale of a Super Bowl. Nailing the technology is part art and part science.  

Yet, it’s not enough to build forecasts and fortify infrastructure for live-streaming gigantic media events. Everything must be validated through rigorous testing in environments that simulate the expected real-world conditions. In other words, getting ready to stream the Super Bowl is a data and technology game that involves engineering know-how and technical support from teams that monitor and evaluate critical systems and dashboards well before the national anthem and kickoff. 

Leaving No Stone Unturned 

This industry knows from previous live events that there is no room for error. If an issue or incident occurs, viewers might miss the most exciting moment of the Super Bowl, which will lead to public outcry, switching channels, and even churn. So, leaving no stone unturned ensures that any issue is anticipated and addressed before it becomes apparent to viewers. While fans everywhere enjoy the event, a dedicated team puts weeks of preparation into practice, making certain that nothing comes between the viewers and their enjoyment of every second of the year's biggest game. 

Super Bowl Sunday is practically a national holiday. The millions of fans who take it in over an internet-based channel will see the product of the media and entertainment industry’s advancements over the last two decades and the painstaking work of a dedicated technology plus support team in real time. While the complexity of streaming media continues to grow, what doesn’t change is the massive commitment formidable media and technology companies put forth to get the event right for viewers. And now you, too, will know what happens behind the scenes to make those expectations a reality. ■

Imagine if the family cars of 16 million American households suddenly vanished — transportation to work, school, doctors and stores suddenly cut off. For many, such a devastating loss would jeopardize their employment, education, healthcare and everyday family needs. 

Now imagine if home broadband for 16 million American households enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) abruptly disappeared: Loss of an internet connection would have many of the same repercussions. If our nation’s next federal budget doesn’t include dollars to extend the ACP, this modern-day nightmare could become reality for millions of Americans as soon as next year.

The Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA) is investing $42.5 billion toward broadband infrastructure to help people in every corner of America maintain high-speed internet at home. This is smart policy, as the past three years clearly demonstrated the criticality of internet access in modern American life.

The IIJA passed the Senate by a resounding 69-30 vote. Broadband availability is the all-too-rare policy issue backed by both progressives and conservatives, and logically so. Progressives note the consistent overlap between digital divides and social divides, with internet have-nots more frequently among communities of color or more vulnerable populations. Conservatives recognize that high-speed internet is critical to education and employment and that people who can work and children who can learn contribute more to, and need less from, the government in their lifetimes.

 But broadband affordability is an even bigger issue than availability.

Rural Americans, in particular, benefit from financial assistance that the ACP provides. In fact, the states with the highest program participation rates are red and rural, and two of the four states that have broken the million mark in total number of households enrolled in the ACP are Republican-led. Struggling farmers need broadband just as much as striving students in the inner city.

 A 2019 study estimated that better adoption of online tools and digital services by businesses outside metropolitan areas could create 360,000 new full-time jobs in rural areas and add more than $140 billion to the U.S. economy over the subsequent three years. Permanently solving the broadband affordability challenge, in addition to closing the availability gaps, would ensure that 30 million rural citizens and thousands of small businesses have access to the network that unleashes innovation in education, retail, entertainment, and many other industries.

What’s more, the Affordable Connectivity Program enables participants to shop among broadband providers, which increases competition in the marketplace. This competitive pressure keeps pricing in check and benefits consumers by significantly expanding their provider and plan choices. Rather than a one-size-fits-all plan, these families in need can select the level of service that best suits their needs, pushing providers to keep their offerings competitive across the board.

America can expect a good return on its investment to make broadband affordable for every household. Research shows a high correlation between increased broadband penetration and GDP growth, with some studies even suggesting a causal relationship. The World Bank estimated that a 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration can lead to a 1.2% jump in real per capita GDP growth in developed economies.

In addition to economic gains, the social benefits of home broadband are immeasurable. Today, meaningful participation in society depends on being connected. From doing homework to seeing pictures of friends and family, the value of ensuring that all Americans can afford broadband can’t be overstated.

President Joe Biden should include a fully funded Affordable Connectivity Program in the budget that he’ll soon submit to Congress, and Republicans should quickly embrace this item, as the data confirms that their constituents are reaping the benefits of broadband. Rather than creating a nightmare for millions of people chasing the American dream, our leaders can help them achieve it. ■