 has been the gold standard for TV ratings for decades, guiding media buyers and advertisers in tracking audience performance. However, 

 Global’s recent decision to move away from Nielsen in favor of VideoAmp signals a significant shift in TV ad measurement—and it could reshape the industry.

While TV networks have explored alternative measurement providers like iSpot, Comscore, and VideoAmp, these tools have mostly been used alongside Nielsen. Paramount’s decision, however, represents one of the first instances where a major network has chosen to operate without Nielsen—at least for now fully. This could set the stage for alternative measurement tools to compete more directly with Nielsen, offering networks and advertisers more flexibility in how they track and value audience engagement.

Paramount’s decision came after contract negotiations with Nielsen broke down over pricing issues. John Halley, Paramount’s Chief Advertising Officer, explained that Nielsen’s costs had "quintupled over significant parts of [their] business," making the current pricing model unsustainable. This echoes a broader sentiment across the industry: many networks have grown frustrated with the rising costs and perceived limitations of Nielsen’s services.

While Paramount has expressed a willingness to resolve the dispute and potentially return to Nielsen, their immediate focus is on VideoAmp for viewership data. This move highlights the industry's growing appetite for more cost-effective, flexible measurement solutions.

The broader implications for TV measurement

Paramount’s decision underscores two key trends shaping the future of TV measurement:

A new competitive landscape for measurement currencies:

This shift doesn’t suggest that Nielsen will cease to be a major currency, but it does lay the groundwork for alternative measurements to be considered true competitors. If Paramount successfully conducts business without Nielsen, it could inspire other networks to follow suit, accelerating the adoption of alternative currencies like VideoAmp. As these tools become more prominent, they could offer more tailored insights, giving advertisers a clearer picture of audience engagement and ad performance.

Pressure for cost-effective solutions and innovation:

Paramount’s frustration with Nielsen isn’t unique. Other networks may face similar pressures to seek alternative tools that provide more granular insights at a lower cost. As the industry evolves, networks and advertisers may gravitate toward measurement solutions that offer more flexibility and the ability to fine-tune campaigns in real-time.

For media buyers, Paramount’s break from Nielsen is an important reminder that the measurement landscape is evolving. While Nielsen remains the dominant player, alternative currencies are gaining traction, and buyers will likely encounter a mix of measurement tools in the near future.

Staying informed about these shifts will be crucial, as buyers may need to adjust their strategies to account for multiple measurement standards. Tools like VideoAmp offer the potential for more detailed, flexible insights, helping media buyers optimize ad spend and better understand viewer behavior across platforms.

Paramount’s move away from Nielsen doesn’t necessarily mark the end of Nielsen’s reign, but it does highlight the growing momentum behind alternative currencies. As more networks explore these options, the industry could see a more competitive, diverse measurement landscape where Nielsen is no longer the default choice.

This shift is an opportunity for media buyers. As alternative measurement tools continue to develop and compete with Nielsen, they could offer new ways to track and optimize campaigns, leading to better outcomes and a more nuanced understanding of audience engagement.

Ultimately, while Nielsen’s influence will likely continue, Paramount’s decision signals that the future of TV measurement may be more dynamic than ever before. Adapting to these changes and staying open to alternative tools will be key to delivering data-driven results in this new era of TV advertising.

Paramount's break from Nielsen highlights rising costs and growing demand for more flexible, cost-effective TV measurement tools

A Rise of Alternative Currencies Era: Paramount's Break with Nielsen and What It Means for the Industry

2024 Holiday Season Forecast: Cutting-Edge TV Ad Strategies, AI Power, and Pro Tips

Back to basics. Let's kick off our guide with a quick refresher on what CPM is.

Cost per thousand, or Cost per Mille (CPM), denotes the price of 1,000 advertisement impressions. In TV advertising, one impression refers to one individual exposure to an advertisement. The formula for calculating CPM is:

CPM is calculated using the formula: (Advertising cost / Impressions generated) * 1000.

Why do we care about CPM? It is used to assess the ad cost across various television networks and programs. Typically, expressed in dollars, CPM represents the cost of running an ad on a specific program or network for a given period. For a comprehensive understanding of CPM in advertising, you can refer to our 

TV CPMs: Understanding the Cost of Television Advertising

Here, we'll dive deeper into the factors that influence this metric and how to navigate these elements to maximize the efficiency of your TV ad campaigns. CPMs are highly dynamic, affected by variables such as the advertiser base, seasonality, and whether the buy is upfront or scatter.

In a perfect world, we could set the perfect TV ad campaign once and maintain the lowest CPM indefinitely. However, reality dictates otherwise. CPMs fluctuate constantly due to factors like advertiser demand, seasonal trends, market dynamics, etc. Our primary goal is to help you steer through this ever-changing landscape effectively.

Audience size and demographics affect CPM in TV advertising

Larger audiences and targeted demographics lead to higher CPMs due to demand, scarcity, and advertising reach effectiveness. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for advertisers to optimize their campaigns and budget allocations. Competition for smaller audiences is higher, making them more expensive to reach, while larger audiences are cheaper. Consequently, CPM for smaller audiences is higher, and for larger audiences, it is lower.

If your brand’s potential customers are baby boomers, the CPM for your campaign would be lower than if you were trying to reach the 18-25 group on traditional TV.

Here are some examples of CPM for different audiences - 8-25 and 55+, over a period from March 2024 to May 2024. As you can see, linear TV CPMs for 55+ are significantly lower and more stable than 18-25 because they are still relatively plentiful in traditional TV.

The next chart shows us the average CPM for the 18-25 and 55+ age groups across four different genres: Drama, News, Reality, and Sports. The CPM for the 18-25 group is significantly higher in all genres, especially in News, where it reaches close to $800. The CPM for the 55+ group is minimal across all genres.

Programs with the largest audiences typically command the highest CPMs. Prime-time shows, for instance, often boast the highest CPMs due to their broad reach. These shows, airing during the coveted evening hours when most people are tuned in, attract a vast and diverse audience.

The scarcity of ad slots during these highly-rated programs further intensifies competition among advertisers, driving up CPMs even more, especially in the scatter market. Here, last-minute ad buys become a frenzy of competition, with brands vying for those few remaining spots. This dynamic creates a premium environment where only the highest bidders secure their place in front of millions of viewers.

So be ready that during the season premiere of a highly-anticipated show, the season finale of a extremely popular series, Presidential debates, or especially the Super Bowl, CPM will be sky-high.

Here is an example of how the CPM changed due to the May 2024 Presidential Debate.

On this chart, we indexed the previous CPMs to the CPMs of the Presidential Debate and contrasted the previous two months’ CPM relative to it. As you can see from the chart below, CPMs prior to the debate were significantly lower – coming in at x% one month below, and y% two months below. Tentpole events like the Presidential Debate give networks (like CNN) the opportunity to charge significantly higher CPMs for an event that would attract a larger audience versus the status quo.

During festive seasons, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas, CPMs typically rise due to increased consumer spending and heightened competition for ad placements. Especially high CPM would be driven by high advertising demand from such categories as retail, fashion, electronics, travel, and, counter-intuitively, financial services - people might open new accounts or take out loans during this time. Even car purchases see a boost.

Traditionally, ad position within a program or break does not significantly impact the CPM. The position of an ad, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of a break, typically does not alter the cost per thousand impressions. However, potential influences can arise with sponsorships or special placements. For example, if an ad is part of a sponsorship package or strategically placed during a high-visibility moment, it might affect the CPM. Even then, the impact on CPM is not always guaranteed, as it depends on the specific terms of the sponsorship and the perceived value of the placement.

Common challenges in managing CPM for TV campaigns

 CPM is typically negotiated based on a network's sales estimates, which are often inflated.

Networks might need to use Audience Deficiency Units (ADUs) to meet guaranteed CPMs. ADUs are free advertising slots given to advertisers to compensate for viewership shortfalls during the contract period.

Popular shows and peak viewing times have limited ad inventory.

This scarcity drives up CPMs, making it tough to secure placements at reasonable rates.

Advertisers compete fiercely for slots during high-profile events like the Super Bowl.

This competition can significantly raise CPMs, straining the budgets of smaller advertisers.

Traditional linear TV relies on metrics like Nielsen ratings, which may not accurately reflect real-time audience reach beyond basic demographics (age and gender). That is why specific tool, like Simulmedia’s TV+ platform, which helps advertisers work with audiences, is needed

This inconsistency can complicate the assessment of CPM effectiveness.

Broader economic factors can influence advertising budgets and spending behavior.

Economic downturns may lead to reduced ad spending, affecting CPM rates and availability.

While not directly a part of CPM, ad quality and relevance significantly impact its effectiveness.

High-quality, relevant ads are more effective in driving engagement and achieving lower CPMs. Advertisers should continuously produce content that resonates with audiences.

Using data analytics to improve CPM Rates

Utilizing data analytics effectively can significantly enhance CPM rates by focusing on two key strategies:

Through data analysis, advertisers can pinpoint underutilized segments of inventory, such as specific networks or dayparts, where there is low demand but a high concentration of the target audience. These segments often present more cost-effective opportunities for ad placement, as they tend to have lower CPMs compared to highly sought-after slots. By strategically placing ads in these underutilized areas, advertisers can reduce their overall CPM and maximize the value of their media spend.

Targeting high-concentration audience segments

Data analytics also helps in identifying audience segments that are densely populated within certain inventory buckets. Targeting these high-concentration segments ensures that ads reach a large portion of the desired demographic without the premium costs associated with more competitive slots. This targeted approach not only improves ad efficiency but also enhances the effectiveness of the campaign by aligning ad placements with audience behavior and preferences.

Generally, a higher number of impressions should lead to a better ROI, provided that you are effectively targeting the right audience.

Higher CPMs can potentially yield better ROI when the ads effectively engage and resonate with the target demographic. Advertisers must ensure that the CPM costs align with the expected increase in sales or brand awareness. For instance, a strategically placed ad during a high-demand program can significantly boost returns, justifying the higher CPM.

However, measuring ROI from TV campaigns presents unique challenges. Unlike digital advertising, where clicks and conversions are directly trackable, TV advertising requires alternative methods for attribution. To address this, advertisers can use statistics provided by TV networks or leverage platforms like Simulmedia TV+, which aggregates data from various providers. This approach helps in assessing the impact of TV ads more accurately and linking them to sales increases or improved brand metrics.

In this guide, we’ve explored the complexities of CPM (Cost Per Thousand Impressions) in TV advertising, shedding light on its role and implications for effective campaign management. Here are the key points discussed:

 Smaller audeinces and more targeting generally lead to higher CPMs due to limited viewership (makes them harder to find), increased demand, and competition. Broader audiences, while less expensive to reach, often come with a higher CPM.

 The distinction between upfront and scatter markets affects CPM rates. Upfront buys typically have lower CPMs compared to scatter buys, which are more expensive due to limited inventory. However, scatter works better for your timing and provides marketers with a greater degree of control to manage their spend

 High-demand programs and peak viewing seasons drive up CPM rates, making it essential for advertisers to plan strategically to balance costs and visibility.

 Traditionally, the position of an ad within a program does not significantly impact CPM, except in cases of sponsorships or special placements, which might offer some influence on costs.

 Advertisers face various challenges, including inflated CPM estimates, competition for limited ad slots, inconsistent measurement metrics, and broader economic factors that affect budget and CPM rates.

 Data-driven strategies, such as identifying underutilized inventory and targeting high-concentration audience segments, can improve CPM rates and enhance campaign efficiency.

The industry's fixation on CPM vs. cost-per-reach

The advertising industry often fixates on CPM as a primary metric, but this approach may not always align with the broader goal of maximizing reach and engagement. CPM focuses on the cost of impressions, but a more comprehensive perspective would be to emphasize cost-per-reach. Cost-per-reach evaluates the cost of reaching a unique individual, providing a clearer picture of ad effectiveness in connecting with the target audience.

Argument for a greater emphasis on cost-per-reach

Shifting focus to cost-per-reach can offer a more nuanced understanding of ad performance. By evaluating how efficiently an ad reaches unique viewers, advertisers can better assess the true impact of their campaigns and optimize their budgets accordingly. After all, the life in likelihood of a consumer to take action is greatest when moving them from 0 exposures to 1 exposure – you can expect far greater exposure there than moving them from 6 exposures to 7. This reach-first approach ensures that advertising dollars are spent effectively, reaching as many potential customers as possible while avoiding unnecessary overspending on high CPM slots that do not significantly contribute to overall reach.

In summary, while CPM remains a crucial metric in TV advertising, integrating cost-per-reach into your evaluation strategy can provide a more holistic view of campaign effectiveness and enhance overall ROI.

Discover key factors influencing TV Advertising CPM and how to optimize your campaigns with data analytics, balancing cost-per-reach and CPM for better ROI.

Mastering CPM: How Audience Demographics and Ad Placement Influence TV Advertising Costs

A version of this was originally featured on ANA.

The general perception that traditional TV viewing is in decline overlooks a key point that marketers need to pay attention to: far from being obsolete, linear TV advertising is actually reaching new audiences through connected TV (CTV) platforms.

Linear TV is no longer a single, steady format; it has grown and changed, with linear TV advertising effectively merging into digital experiences due to the proliferation of audience viewing options, particularly around linear-like digital consumption. For marketers, this evolution means that to thrive in the future world of TV is not just about being proficient in the 

 space but also in the nuances of linear TV. Brands will need to know how to tap into TV's fragmented audience effectively. Ignoring this interconnectedness risks missing out on a significant segment of the TV audience, because a majority of ad opportunities coming through these linear-like streaming experiences are fulfilled through the linear TV pipes, with only a small portion fulfilled through the CTV pipes.

But what exactly constitutes linear and non-linear in this new landscape? Is it the device, the programming content, the consumer experience, or the ability to run addressable advertising? To find the answer, marketers need an understanding of how the same content is distributed differently across platforms.

In the early stages of television history, audiences relied on broadcast TV, accessing live linear channels through over-the-air transmissions and experiencing linear content in a scheduled manner. The introduction of cable and satellite subscriptions brought a new dimension, with content transmitted through dedicated boxes, further exploding consumer choice on traditional TV.

The evolution of the TV industry saw the emergence of streaming platforms like TV Everywhere (

), blurring the distinction between traditional linear TV and digital streaming. With the introduction of virtual multichannel video programming distributors (

) and free ad-supported streaming television (

), these boundaries have further blurred, creating a complex TV environment.

Understanding the terminology is critical. TVE enables streaming of linear content on internet-connected devices, while vMVPDs (e.g., YouTube TV, Sling TV, Hulu+Live TV) combine linear and streaming. FAST offers free streaming channels beyond traditional systems. However, there needs to be more consistency in how TVE, vMVPDs, and FAST are classified, often grouped as streaming despite delivering live linear content.

FAST encompasses free streaming apps replicating traditional TV (i.e., FAST apps) such as Pluto TV, Tubi, Roku Channel, and Plex, among others, and time-scheduled channels within streaming services (i.e., FAST channels) that are typically comprised of shows from older content libraries.

An example of this complexity is the difference between the NBC App, a TVE service requiring a traditional TV subscription, and Peacock, a streaming service that doesn't need a standard TV subscription but offers its service using subscription and ad-supported models. Both provide some shows accessible as video-on-demand (VOD) but differ in the live scheduled programming that's available. For instance, Peacock doesn't provide the same live, linear channel feeds found on cable or satellite TV but instead offers curated 24/7 show feeds as FAST channels, such as the single-show FAST channel dedicated to the long-running 1980s program 

, contrasting with the live-streaming feature of NBC App that includes traditional channels such as Bravo and SYFY. While TVE apps like NBC App started as a way for cable and satellite subscribers to access content while traveling, it also became a way for cord-cutters to access live linear programming by using shared passwords of friends and family who are subscribers.

The Interconnected Ecosystem of Ad Consumption

Layered onto the intricate relationships between content, channels, and apps is the allocation of advertising rights, further complicating the television landscape. In the traditional linear advertising model, distributors 

 monetize 10 percent to 15 percent of ad space, while programmers command 85 percent to 90 percent. As these feeds transition to TVE and virtual vMVPDs apps, viewers witness the same 14 minutes of national advertising by programmers, with the remaining two minutes sold by the app owner, often labeled as streaming ads. For example, watching a scheduled episode of 

 on the Bravo Channel via the YouTube TV app involves streaming a live linear feed via the vMVPD app. NBC/Bravo generally monetizes 85 percent with national linear ads, and Google/YouTube sells the remaining 15 percent as streaming ads.

The overlap between linear and streaming TV complicates advertising strategies. Cord-cutters, traditionally seen as outside the reach of linear advertising, can still be targeted through linear ads on TVE and vMVPD streaming apps. These ads appear on live scheduled linear channels within streaming platforms, challenging media planners. Buying a national linear spot might also place ads within streaming environments, further blurring lines due to inconsistent industry definitions.

The common belief that streaming is overtaking linear TV overlooks the hybrid nature of platforms like TVE, vMVPDs, and FAST, all of which provide live linear content via streaming apps. Additionally, this view doesn't differentiate between ad-supported and ad-free streaming, a crucial distinction for marketers.

Data analysis reveals insights into ad viewing habits. For example, 

Nielsen's Gauge report from September 2023

, which excludes vMVPD data, shows broadcast and cable making up 52.8 percent of viewing time, with streaming at 29.8 percent. However, this includes ad-free content and doesn't account for low ad load environments. Using Simulmedia's TV+ platform, Simulmedia has found that of the 29 minutes spent daily watching ads, 75.9 percent (22 minutes) is on linear TV, and 24.1 percent (seven minutes) is on CTV.

The significant difference between linear TV usage time and linear TV ad-viewing time suggests that focusing on ad-viewing trends provides a more accurate lens for marketers to allocate budgets versus the emphasis on content viewing or channel usage metrics.

As audiences shift toward CTV, marketers need to recognize that cord-cutters still encounter traditional linear ads on streaming platforms like TVE and vMVPDs. This overlap challenges advertisers, as separate transactions for linear and streaming can lead to audiences being repeatedly inundated with the same ad or series of ads.

Marketers must adapt their strategies to effectively reach audiences and understand how viewers consume TV across platforms. It is essential to employ advanced buying strategies, such as using TV viewership data to suppress exposed audiences to avoid ad duplication. This approach helps optimize the viewer experience and a campaign's effectiveness.

Marketers navigating the convergence of streaming and linear TV must employ sophisticated tactics to ensure efficient budget allocation and engage their target audiences without overwhelming them with repetitive ads. By addressing these challenges proactively, advertisers can achieve better marketing outcomes.

Networks Are Trying to Adapt FAST As Consumer Perceptions of TV Evolve

Like linear TV, the mechanics around TV channels are also evolving. Take the TMZ channel available through the Tubi app. Is that a channel available in the cable world? Well, Fox produces 

, which is a show that airs on Fox's linear channels. Fox also owns Tubi, which has created a free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) channel consisting of an uninterrupted stream of 

 episodes. This type of single-show channel experience does not exist in the traditional TV world and is a wholly unique viewer experience in the streaming world, with the ads all flowing from the streaming pipes.

To create more significant differentiation among FAST apps, Fox is unlikely to license that content to other competitive players in the TV ecosystem, such as apps belonging to competitor TV corporations like Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the viewer's connected TV (CTV) device. Many OEMs have their proprietary FAST apps, like Vizio's WatchFree, Samsung's TV Plus, and Roku's Roku Channel, which are comprised of FAST channels and offer various content licensed by different production companies. These new players have challenged the traditional confines of cable and broadcast TV and assert their influence on the consumer by making their FAST app the default way to stream content.

Consumers do not typically distinguish between live, linear streams, and pure streaming channels on FAST apps — to the viewer, it's all TV. While this distinction might not matter to consumers, 

advertisers must navigate these intricacies

 for effective TV budget allocation in a landscape where the lines between traditional and CTV viewing experiences continue to blur.

How to navigate the interconnected realms of streaming and linear TV advertising

Demystifying the Differences Between Linear TV and CTV

In an era where television was not merely entertainment but a cultural event, the inception of the 

 marked a strategic revolution in advertising. In the 1960s, amid a backdrop in which today's digital sprawl was mere science fiction, upfront negotiations set the stage for an annual symbiotic dance between networks and advertisers. With only three major broadcasters holding the reins to America's visual diet, the competition for ad slots (particularly those in prime time) was fierce. Highly coveted inventory was scarce; securing it early was not just advantageous but imperative.

As families congregated nightly in front of their televisions, networks wielded extraordinary power, often stumbling upon hit shows that raked in massive viewership. Advertisers, hungry for a slice of this captive audience (and to secure better inventory pricing and brand visibility), would lock in enough advertising commitments that made up a good portion of a network's annual revenue. The long months of negotiations and the significant control networks had over advertisers' budgets seemed a small price to pay for the certainty and discounts that the upfronts provided. In this golden age of television, the upfront model didn't just make sense, it thrived — sculpting the fiscal landscapes of both networks and advertisers with an iron fist veiled in velvet.

The Upfront in the Modern Media Landscape

, the upfront model faces an increasing variety of limitations. With more than 160 broadcast and cable networks and hundreds of streaming services and 

, the upfronts seem to many to be an increasingly outdated relic. The explosion of high-quality media channels means that premium inventory is no longer as scarce, and that advertisers are likely to find their audience (and access to key business outcomes) across multiple platforms without the need for early, locked-in commitments.

Today's highest-rated TV shows draw far smaller audiences than hits of the past, thanks to the diversification of what viewers watch and the availability of vast content libraries through streaming platforms and FAST channels. Increased audience fragmentation has led to more frequent use of ADUs (

) and make-goods, which can disrupt the timing and relevance of campaigns. In addition, as 

, many advertisers have continued to prioritize spending flexibility.

Despite challenges and lengthy negotiations, upfronts continue to play a crucial role in the ad planning and buying strategies of agency-holding companies and major brand marketers. They allow networks to maintain control over significant portions of advertisers' budgets and often compel media buyers to purchase packages that bundle less desirable inventory with highly coveted ad units. This rigidity contrasts sharply with marketers' need for agility and the flexibility to adjust campaigns quickly in response to real-time events and consumer demand.

This evolving landscape underscores the benefits of shifting toward continuous and data-driven planning. Such strategies promise not only adaptability but also the potential to achieve upfront-scale buying efficiency within the linear TV 

, and other premium video channels. To truly capitalize on these opportunities, 

advertisers must holistically manage these efforts

, ensuring that campaigns maximize reach, limit over-frequency, and achieve key business outcomes effectively and efficiently. This approach aligns more closely with the real-time demands of contemporary viewership and the strategic imperatives of modern marketers.

The Rise of Continuous, Data-Driven Planning and Buying

The evolution of continuous and data-driven planning represents a significant shift in advertising strategies. Moving away from reliance on broad demographics such as age and gender, this modern approach focuses on strategic audience targeting using advanced data sets. These include behavioral patterns, interests, and other nuanced signals, enabling advertisers to pinpoint and engage specific consumer segments predictably and effectively. The advent of CTV and other premium digital video platforms enhances this strategy, offering the flexibility of year-round buying and the ability to make real-time campaign adjustments.

No longer does the scatter market have to be a secondary option that allows smaller brands access to TV advertising at higher costs and with limited control over ad placements. Today, with more precise targeting, automation, and advanced analytics, the scatter market provides a robust channel for year-round buying, allowing advertisers to select specific ad spots, optimize their timing, and efficiently scale their campaigns. This modern approach not only offers greater advertising effectiveness but also enhances control over advertising spend, rivaling the scale benefits once exclusive to upfront buys with far greater flexibility and enhanced full-funnel marketing impact.

Despite growing challenges and a shift toward more flexible advertising models, the traditional TV upfront model retains importance for certain segments within the advertising ecosystem: primarily large-scale advertisers aiming to secure premium ad slots during live sporting events, award shows, and other high-profile programs. These events still draw massive audiences and represent some of the most valuable advertising opportunities on television. At the same time, most of the other ostensible benefits of the upfronts — the opportunity for cross-channel (linear, CTV, digital, etc.) diversification, incremental reach, impression guarantees, and negotiated options to cancel portions of the upfront — can be achieved or mirrored outside of the upfront context.

The broader TV ad planning and buying landscape is undeniably changing. The fragmentation of TV viewership across various platforms — and the increasing demand from advertisers for outcome-based metrics — is prompting a reevaluation of the upfront model. Many brand marketers and independent agencies are increasingly turning to continuous and data-driven strategies, allowing for year-round planning, buying, and optimization, as well as the ability to maximize return-on-ad-spend with greater flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions.

For many advertisers, especially those not targeting the highest echelons of broadcast events, participation in traditional upfronts is becoming less critical. Advances in technology and data analytics now allow these advertisers to access premium inventory, drive significant reach, and maximize ad spend effectiveness without the constraints of upfront commitments.

Navigating the Future of TV Advertising (and the Upfront Evolution)

As television advertising transitions from its traditional paradigm to a more dynamic and outcome-focused landscape, the TV upfront model confronts a pivotal juncture. While upfronts still provide value for securing ads during high-profile events with large audiences, the increasing fragmentation of audiences, growth of premium video outlets, and demand for personalized media require a more flexible and targeted advertising approach.

The ability to leverage real-time audience data, better optimize campaigns in flight, and measure cross-platform performance provides significant advantages over the rigid upfront commitments of the past. By targeting more precise consumer segments, routinely optimizing media mix, and tying ad exposure to business outcomes, data-driven TV advertising enables greater efficiency and effectiveness.

To be clear, this transition may be complex for some organizations, as fully harnessing the potential has two key requirements:

Industry participants must continue to sufficiently invest in disparate data source integration, data integrity, and analytical capabilities.

The industry itself needs to reconcile evolving measurement standards and the need for cross-platform currencies to enable seamless planning and attribution.

While the upfront model could theoretically adapt to modern advertising needs, the industry is moving toward more flexible, data-driven approaches that better align with the changing media landscape and evolving audience behaviors. Advances in technology and analytics now allow advertisers to reach more people broadly across a variety of channels and platforms, target audiences more precisely, optimize campaigns in real time, and achieve key business outcomes — all without the traditional constraints of upfront commitments.

As the paradigm of TV evolves, so must the storied upfront

The Upfront Is Dead, Long Live the Upfront

Around 90 million households in the US watch linear TV (and around 104 million stream their favorite shows on a TV, with more than half of these using a blend of "traditional" and digital TV.)

And yet, despite the massive numbers, the death of TV has been prophesied, announced, canceled, and re-ignited a thousand times since the advent of online video streaming.

Yes, traditional TV is in decline, but it's not going away anytime soon—it's still finding ways to evolve.

Without a trace of doubt, TV advertising continues to offer distinctive advantages for brands and marketers. Some of the essential ones include:

TV's unparalleled reach allows advertisers to communicate with a vast and diverse audience spanning various demographics and interests. This broad exposure helps brands reach a wide range of potential customers, making it an efficient and cost-effective method of advertising.

Due to modern technology (and hundreds of cable networks to choose from), TV advertising is also easier to scale—as compared to older, more manual TV media buying processes. Even buying scatter TV ads, traditionally considered hard to scale, is now available for brands with streamlined, automated buying solutions (like Simulmedia's TV+, for example) at scale.

The internet's got a bad rap for trustworthiness. The general consensus is that pretty much anyone can post anything online (which is not untrue). According to 

, TV continues to rank as the most trusted media channel.

A similar phenomenon happens with advertising as well. Sure, buying things off of TikTok is all fun and games -- but 

 shows television, radio, and print still hold more sway when it comes to making purchasing decisions.

The trustworthiness of TV advertising translates into better brand recall and consumer trust, which should help drive more website/app visits, higher conversion rates, and ROI for advertisers’ direct and other paid and owned channels. TV ads are easier to run than ever, so there's not much excuse for sending them to the collective dustbin of history.

Unskippable ads: An effective channel for your message

Ignoring banner ads has become the norm. Ad blockers and banner ad blindness have become significant hurdles for digital advertisers. But with TV, viewers don't get to skip ads (unless they change channels), making it a much more effective channel for delivering your message.

TV also offers the chance to create visually appealing and emotionally resonating advertisements that capture audiences’ attention and leave a lasting impact. From memorable jingles to heartwarming commercials, TV ads have the potential to become part of popular culture and be remembered long after they've aired.

 Christmas is near when the Coca-Cola Christmas truck ad runs on TV. And you 

 that the Super Bowl just isn't complete without new and creative TV ads to watch during the game. On TV, ads don’t just need to act as a filler, with the right creative, they can be part of people's entertainment experience.

TV advertising uniquely enables brands to build and showcase their personalities in a way that resonates deeply with consumers. Through creative storytelling and emotional engagement, television ads can help companies establish a memorable identity and foster a strong connection with their audience. This medium allows for a rich, multi-sensory experience that can elevate a brand's presence in the public eye and differentiate it from competitors.

TV ads are not just for the TV. With the rise of digital media, TV ads can be repurposed and shared across different platforms, such as social media, websites, and online streaming services. This allows for increased exposure and reach for the ad, making it a versatile marketing asset that can continue to generate results long after it has aired on TV.

Leveraging digital media in conjunction with TV advertising offers unparalleled opportunities for brand engagement and interaction. Today's viewers often engage in "second screen" behavior, meaning they watch TV while simultaneously using their phone or tablet. This habit opens up a dynamic channel for advertisers to connect with their audience in real-time. By syncing TV ads with digital content, brands can drive engagement and conversion rates while amplifying their message.

In addition, tools like Simulmedia’s allow you to integrate TV advertising with advanced data and targeting capabilities, making it possible to zero in on the programs and dayparts where you can find large numbers of your unreached target audience. With this level of precision and targeting, advertisers can optimize their campaigns for maximum effectiveness and measure the results accurately.

Open any page and any app on a smartphone, tablet, or computer, and your screen will likely soon be filled with a never-ending display of bright, flashing ads.

For some viewers, the constant deluge of digital advertisements can quickly become overwhelming and intrusive, leading to ad fatigue and a lack of engagement. TV ads offer a full-screen viewing experience without trying to draw people’s attention away from the primary content they’re trying to engage with. On a TV screen, the time-based separation of ad and content allows for more focused attention on the ad's message and greater potential for impact.

 commonly associated with several cons. However, most of these downsides are 

 in nature (largely because modern technology has bypassed or overcome them entirely.)

Here are some of the things you should know about TV ad cons:

 and, by its nature, quite difficult to measure. Unlike digital advertising, TV ads offer little in the way of audience data beyond age and gender.

: with more advanced analytics and data capabilities now available for TV ads, this disadvantage is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Using platforms like Simulmedia's TV+, advertisers can now use insights and metrics that go beyond basic age and gender demographics -- like life stage, interests, affinity, habits, behavior, preferences, and more, particularly when planning and buying scatter TV ads, where advertisers can place ads on TV channels at short notice.

: Linear TV is not "lackluster" in terms of audience data. It may not 

 be as granular as digital, but it can still provide more than valuable insights if leveraged effectively.

: There is a general perception that TV ads are disruptive, and imposed upon viewers without their consent.

: While it's true that TV ads interrupt the viewing experience, the truth is that most times, viewers actually 

 the breaks. What’s more, the very fact that, in streaming TV, people are 

 to watch ads (for a cheaper subscription – which must not be ignored, but nevertheless, just one of the many decision factors). This goes to show ads aren’t evil per se – good timing and a careful calibration of ad loads 

 make a major difference in just how much of a nuisance ads are perceived as.

Plus, (most) digital ads are just as, if not more interruptive than TV ads. Online ads are about more than just interruption, though. They 

 be highly annoying, especially when they slow down your browsing experience, but to add insult to injury, they’re also intrusive. The entire digital advertising ecosystem is built on “following” consumers around online – a highly intrusive practice in itself (even if you ignore ads that block content, slow down your page load, and so on. Sure, linear advertising has its own ways of measuring success and, yes, TV ads can be interruptive – but all in all, they’re guilty of lesser sins than most other forms of advertising.

: The idea that TV ads are interruptive is not entirely false, but it's also not the full story—and even less so when you consider how intrusive online ads are (especially on certain websites).

Video production is expensive and complicated

: Producing a TV ad is too expensive and complicated for small businesses or startups to afford.

: While producing a high-quality TV ad can require a significant budget and resources, that doesn't mean smaller companies can't leverage this medium. With the rise of online video production tools (including AI and animation tools), self-service platforms, and the proliferation of creator-generated content that, with some editing skills, can be stitched together into a compelling, authentic ad experience, there are now more opportunities for businesses of all sizes to create and air TV ads.

: While producing a TV ad may require some investment, it's not an impossible feat for smaller companies with tighter budgets. TV ads offer a unique opportunity for these companies to stand out from their competitors and reach a wider audience, making it a worthwhile investment in many cases.

: Showing your ads on a national TV channel involves a budget of millions of dollars.

: This might be partially true, largely because the concept of “expensive national TV ads” revolves around the Upfront market. However, significant efficiencies can be found across multiple networks beyond just the Upfront deals. The scatter market provides opportunities for more cost-effective advertising, allowing for tighter budget management and flexibility in spending.

: The cost of putting your ads on national TV varies greatly – so don’t assume your situation will be on the more expensive end of the range. You have options – one of them could be exactly what your business needs.

It takes a long time to produce & launch a TV campaign

 Creating and launching a TV campaign will take weeks (just from a planning and negotiation perspective.)

: Yes, traditionally, producing and launching TV campaigns can be time-intensive. The typical process would involve a marketer discussing details with an agency, negotiating pricing, calling each network to see what placements are available, and building the media plan according to what’s available (and where they think their audience will be.)

Once the client approves the media plan proposal, the agency needs to call each network in the media plan and place the order (assuming the spot is still available – otherwise, they’ll need to do another round of planning and approvals). That entire process can take up to a few weeks (3-4, for example, in the scatter market.) 

, Simulmedia allows you to launch your campaign in a week. We have pre-negotiated rates, integrated with all major networks (and read their real-time availability into our system), and have vast amounts of viewership data to feed into our sophisticated machine-learning models to assemble the optimal media plan.

All these benefits allow our customers to deliver a media plan to the client with maximum efficiency. After approval, the streamlined placing of orders (at the push of a button) means activating an approved plan takes very little time.

: When good technology is available, most of the “downsides” of traditional/linear TV ads are a thing of the past.

Traditional TV is not known for speedy campaign launches, but with Simulmedia, they get on air within a week.

: Traditional TV campaign reports are very slow, and you will have to wait for weeks 

 the end of your campaign before you can get your results.

: That does have partial truth to it. Every network you buy ads from needs to deliver their post logs, which agencies need to reconcile manually, and every network has a different format for them. Once the media agency collects 

this data, it is manually aggregated and delivered to advertisers. 

, with Simulmedia, you get real-time reporting on your TV ads (because we integrate with major ACR vendors.) We also have automated postlog processing – so you don’t have to wait for manual reconciliation. These automation and systems help us provide you with all the data you need to optimize your campaigns once a month.

 slower than other channels (especially digital) – but with the right partnership and tech, you can considerably slash the time it takes to push an ad (and gather reports)

The world is drowning in digital content. TV ads can be your way of standing out and building real connections. Whatever perceived faults or shortcomings TV ads may have, they are largely unfounded in the modern advertising landscape.

TV ads offer unmatched reach, sophistication, and impact when executed well. With the integration of digital tactics and advanced data analytics, it presents an even more powerful tool for advertisers to connect with their audience and achieve their marketing goals. So go ahead, tap into the power of TV advertising, and make your brand's message stand out.

Discover the top advantages of TV advertising in 2024, from wide reach to enhanced trust and engagement.

Unlock winning holiday strategies! Get insights on AI, TV ads, and more in our free e-book.

Order Manager for Publishers Guide

What's Inside