It’s official: Tucker Carlson is no longer with Fox News.

For advertisers, media buyers, and brands, this poses a big question. Where will Carlson’s viewers go — and how will we be able to find them?

Cable news is a valuable reach vehicle across many strategic target audiences, so we’ve been digging in with our Data Science team to determine what the impact might be for advertisers.

But before we forecast the future, it’s important we look to the past.

Looking to the Past: Bill O’Reilly’s Departure

The last popular news anchor to depart Fox News unexpectedly was Bill O’Reilly back in April of 2017. The show generated $446 million in ad revenue from 2014 to 2016 with an average of 33 commercials a night.

, ratings declined for his time slot upon his exit — and the overall network viewership took about an 8% hit.

However, this was short-lived. After about a month, Fox News network viewership bounced back to pre-O’Reilly departure levels.

Tucker Carlson, his replacement, saw over 600,000 viewers in his debut on Fox News. The show went on to average nearly 3 million viewers daily in the first quarter of 2018 — lower than O’Reilly’s last two years but better than his performance pre-Trump, according to 

Carlson’s success continued to grow throughout his time on Fox.

From January 1st to April 23rd in 2023, Tucker Carlson Tonight comprised 

 watched on Fox News from Jan. 1st to April 23rd in 2023.

Since January 1st, Carlson’s show has ranked the 

 in terms of linear watch-time across all networks, and the 5th most watched program during primetime hours across all networks.

What does this mean for Fox News post-Carlson?

Our team found that Monday night’s Fox News Tonight, the first 8pm temporary replacement hosted by Brian Kilmeade, saw a 21% decline versus Tucker Carlson’s average viewership. That said, Hannity at 9pm did not see any difference in viewership.

If we continue to see an overall delivery decline on the network post-Tucker Carlson, we anticipate it to rebound in a similar fashion as in 2017.

Why? A look at the data shows Fox News’ ability to rebound in a matter of months during times of uncertainty. Furthermore, Fox News has exclusive rights to the first GOP debate in August, with campaign coverage to follow throughout the next several months. In other words, exclusive coverage of the highly anticipated GOP debate is likely to bring in viewers and boost viewership.

We also know O’Reilly’s 2016 and 2017 ratings soared due in part to the 2016 presidential election and beginning of President Donald Trump in the White House. In 2016, O’Reilly’s show saw an 

average of more than 3.3 million total viewers

, and about 573,000 viewers in the coveted 25-54 year-old demographic. The big takeaway: Elections are a huge factor in boosting viewership, and Fox News is just months away from one of the biggest debates of the year.

What Are Audiences Watching in the Interim?

To demonstrate just how powerful maximizing unique reach can be, we took a look at audiences who watched Carlson’s show in the last months. Our goal is to show that even without a spot on Carlson’s show, you can still reach these audiences through our powerful TV+ platform.

For a campaign of $1 million, our platform selected 64 networks across all of national linear TV — some that may even seem counterintuitive, like MSNBC. Here’s a snippet of what that plan looks like:

While this was just an experiment, it goes to show that viewers won’t disappear when their favorite talkshow does. Rather, they turn to other channels.

Interested in seeing how Simulmedia can strategically find your brand’s target audience and help you take control during this uncertain time? 

Tucker Carlson’s Exit: What Advertisers Need To Know

The big news in our industry last week was the antitrust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice and a number of states’ Attorneys General against Google for alleged monopolistic practices in the operation of its advertising technology businesses.

We have all been waiting for it for years. In fact, I enjoyed watching a 

 posted by legendary investment banker (and comedian) Terry Kawaja of LUMA Partners recently on social media of a talk that he gave at a Google event 10 years ago. He led off with jokes about the likely presence of DOJ folks in the back of the room -- since every major digital publisher and advertiser was there, and inevitably tied up with its DoubleClick and other owned and controlled ad-tech platforms.

Most expect that the desired outcome of this week’s lawsuit will be the separation of Google’s ad-tech businesses -- DoubleClick for publishers, Google Ad Exchange marketplace and Google Ad Manager and Google DB 360 digital ad-buying platforms -- so that they can’t cross-subsidize each other and be used in tandem to force advertisers and/or publishers to adopt Google tools and potentially pay anticompetitive rates.

Hanging over everything is the enormous market power of Google’s parent company’s ownership of so many other businesses that could either impact or cross-subsidize its ad-tech businesses, including its offerings in streaming video (YouTube), storage (Google Cloud), email (Gmail), content (Google News), navigation (Waymo), insights (Google Analytics) and many others.

Will an ad-tech breakup actually happen? I don’t know.

When the DOJ went after Microsoft in a similar fashion back in 2001, hoping to force it to break up its personal computer software, business enterprise software and consumer gaming businesses, it won the suit but ended up settling with Microsoft to just change some of its business practices, including unbundling its Explorer Internet browser, which was being bundled in its Windows software.

My sense then was that Microsoft and its shareholders would have been better off with unbundling. Each could have grown differently -- likely faster – and probably could have each been stronger alone than together. Given the fact that Microsoft’s stock price and performance was pretty poor for a long time until Satya Nadella finally took over as CEO in 2014, that sense was probably right.

I think the same for Alphabet today. Sure, there is some strong synergy between its ad tech and other businesses. And its dominant search and YouTube businesses are big parts of that. However, I am convinced that the ad-tech assets are held back as much or more as they are benefited, and that they would be better as a standalone company singularly focused on serving its advertising and publisher customers, separated from all of the internal and sometimes conflicting and compromising Google and Alphabet pressures.

So, if I were Alphabet, I would take a page out of Br'er Rabbit, and not mind so much if I had to break up some of my advertising technology businesses.

 for TV and streaming advertising provides unified access to premium linear and CTV inventory across all networks and publishers. 

An earlier version of this blog was originally published by 

If the Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet is successful, Google's ad-tech business and its advertising and publisher customers may end up better off.

Will Alphabet Actually Benefit From the DOJ Lawsuit Against Google?

Nothing drives viewership like sports, and with the rise of streaming TV, it’s a whole new ballgame. Just how important are sports to TV? Consider this: in 2022, 94 of the top 100 highest-rated programs were sports broadcasts! What will the future bring as more streamers get involved? How will the surge in sports betting shape the fortunes of teams, leagues and media partners? 

For answers to these and more burning questions, the Simulmedia Salon Series turned to special guest and 

, the former President of Turner, and a member of the 

 Hall of Fame. Below are highlights of the insights he shared with 

, CEO and Founder of Simulmedia, and the Salon attendees:

"There is no appointment viewing on entertainment anymore. I can't remember the last time anybody said, 'Oh, my god. I can't go out tonight, I have to go watch this show.' You go back seven years ago: there was no Peacock, there was no Paramount+, there was no HBO Max. And so where sports are being distributed, and the consumer habits, have completely changed, viewing habits have completely changed, and everything is portable now.

"The NFL and its first year on Amazon was a huge success. People say the ratings were down, but of course they're down --  it’s on a streaming service on a different platform that people aren't used to. It took me two weeks to figure out how to get the Fire Stick to work to get the NFL game on, but I did it, because I wanted to watch it. I also think the deal that MLS did with Apple is going to be unique.

"And I think the happiest person probably is [NBA commissioner] Adam Silver because he can now sit on the sidelines for two years and see how Amazon progresses and see how Apple progresses and see who’s going to go on with the other streaming services with the other media companies. But there's no doubt in my mind that he certainly has to play some role, because the next generation of fans are using streaming services."

"First of all, just for full disclosure, I am also the Chairman of the Board of a company called Genius Sports, which  basically buys the data live streaming rights from all the sports leagues, and then we repackage it and we sell it to sports books. So the reason why I disclose that is I really believe that sports books are either going to buy media companies, or media companies are going to buy sports books, or sports books are just going to create their own media companies. FanDuel is already out there with FanDuel TV. I think you're seeing a very strong aggressive move with DraftKings and their ownership of content.

"So ultimately ESPN is going to buy a sports book or create one of their own. That moment is when I think Disney will spin out the company, because I don't think it fits with the family-friendly brand. But right now, I think there's too too much positive cash flow with ESPN, so if I'm Disney, I want that under my books so I can build out the things I need to build out right now.

"Also, ESPN+ is in 27-28 million homes right now. It's not enough. Cable now is in 75 million homes paying $15-$20 a month for the entire ESPN portfolio. You do the math: it's a lot to give up and to shift over. So they still have to keep a lot of their quality high-end programming on ESPN. But as cord-cutting continues to happen and the number of homes gets down to 50 million, I think you're going to see a shifting of a lot of that programming out of ESPN and onto ESPN+. They may simulcast it first so it will be on both, and then the [MVPD] operators will yell and they'll take their $15 down to $12, but it's still 12 bucks. Then ultimately, all the programming will end up on ESPN+ and there'll still be programming on ESPN, but it will be much easier and safer to have the company spin out."

Will U.S. Media Companies Own Sports Teams?

"At Turner, we owned the Braves and we owned the Hawks for many years. I remember having this conversation with Ted Turner: I go, 'Why do you have the Atlanta Braves? What do you care about this baseball team?' He goes, 'I don't even like baseball.' I said, 'Okay, then why'd you buy the team?' He said, 'Because it's 125 games and I get three-and-a-half hours in primetime, that's a lot of programming I don't have to program for.' So he completely thought about it as a programming deal.

"Teams are hard to manage, I actually don't believe the leagues themselves want media companies to own teams anymore. I actually think the new nouveau buyers of teams now are going to be private equity companies, and you're starting to see it already."

"I think it boils down to two words: personalization and gamification. Let’s use sports betting for example: If every single person in the United States that could possibly bet on something did so, it would only be 8% of the country. It's not that big. People think, 'Oh, 50% of the country is going to be betting.' No, it’s 8%. Now, 8% is a good number if you think about how big our country is. So there may be a betting feed [for a game], but it's not going to be for everyone --  you're not going to put out an entire betting feed for the other 92% that doesn't want to watch gambling stuff. But there will be feeds and personalization for what you want, and gamification is already happening. I think you're already seeing it on Amazon. 

"When March Madness came to Turner, for the semi-finals and finals we actually had alternate telecasts with homies for the teams that were playing. So if Duke was playing Syracuse, we hired a bunch of Duke fanatic play-by-play guys and old Duke legends to be on the telecast in Syracuse. We did that on TNT and we had a Syracuse one on truTV, and on TBS was the normal Jim Nance broadcast. The Manning Brothers are the exact same thing -- it's just another feed. If you don't want to listen to the Manning Brothers, you don't have to, you can watch a great football game. But I think you're going to be able to have numerous feeds and sports betting is going to be one of them."

Creating Destination Programming With Sports

"It has to be authentic. You can't put A and B together if it's not authentic and it's not real and it doesn't have real brands on it -- it's not going to work. So when we did 

 at Turner in 2018, it was easy for me to understand it and create it. The two biggest names in golf were Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, and I knew television ratings were always 30% higher when they were on the leaderboard, so why not just take the higher 30% ratings, have them play against each other in a gambling match for $9-million bucks?

"It came easy. If you manufacture events and they're not easy to understand, you should probably not do it. As soon as I said 'pickleball with John McEnroe and Andre Agassi,' it worked. So Horizon Sports & Experiences is producing the 

 with Agassi, McEnore, Michael Chang and Andy Roddick competing for a $1 million purse at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida on April 2, to be televised exclusively on ESPN."

"I was watching NFL football and college football all through the holidays; I had my kids and girlfriends and boyfriends all over at the house and every single one of them were on their phone doing parlays for $5 here, $5 there. Sports ratings are still growing because of engagement. If you bet on a game, you're 98% more likely to watch the game. If you're going to watch the game, you're engaged. If you're engaged, you spend more time watching. One of the Nielsen rankings, as you get ratings, is time spent viewing. So if you spend a little more time watching, ratings are going to go up. If ratings go up, advertising goes up. If advertising goes up, media rights go up. If media rights go up, franchise values go up. All from a $5 bet."

Discover the future of sports and streaming from media all-star David Levy, who joined the Simulmedia Salon to discuss the impact of betting, how to create fan engagement, the growth of destination programming and more.

Why Sports Programming Is a Safe Bet for Streaming's Future

Recently, Microsoft announced it was laying off more than 10,000 of its employees. Two weeks before that, Salesforce announced it would cut 8,000 employees from its roster. That same day, Amazon announced that it would lay off 8,000 employees on top of the 10,000 that it already announced in November. Also in November, Meta (Facebook) announced 11,000 layoffs.

According to tracking site Layoffs.fyi, 122 companies have laid off 37,525 tech workers in the first 18 days of this year. In 2022, 1025 tech companies laid off 154,386 employees.

For those impacted, their families, dependents and communities, this is a terrible situation, and nothing that I write here today is intended to make light of that or present it as anything other tragic.

This happened not just because of softness in the advertising market (which is a primary or significant revenue driver for the majority of today’s tech giants) or supply chain issues. It also happened because, as we all know, many of these companies purposefully over-hired tech talent over the past half dozen years, stockpiling developers, scientists and product managers as much to keep them away from their competitors than because they desperately needed that many people to build against high-priority product roadmaps.

Many of the big tech players were growing fast, running fat profit margins and had stock prices that kept going up and to the right. With the cost of capital practically free, money was everywhere, and cost-conscious fiscal discipline wasn’t the core ethos of how these companies operated.

The tech giants weren’t just keeping these extraordinarily talented and well-trained technologists away from other big tech companies (and little ones too), they were keeping them from the tens of thousands of companies operating businesses that weren’t “technology first,” but needed to embrace technology if there were going to survive and thrive in the onrushing and overwhelming digital future that now confronts them.

These companies operate in more staid, less sexy businesses -- maybe in government, nonprofits, manufacturing, service delivery, food, agriculture, construction, or hospitality, you name it. There's high potential for magic in the mixing of great tech talent wanting to work and make a difference, and tech-needy institutions needing high-quality help.

We saw tens of thousands of recently laid off Internet-trained workers make their way into mainstream companies and organizations in the wake of the dot-com bubble bursting in 2001, transforming many of those companies. I believe we will see the same thing now, but at a much more massive and faster scale. I know that this line of thinking doesn’t provide solace for those whose lives have just been upended, but it should give all of us optimism for the long-term health and vibrancy of our society and institutions.

We have long needed to democratize the haves and the have-nots of technology talent. It will be painful and dislocating for too many who don’t deserve it and did nothing wrong, but it will make a big difference in the end.

Discover what's really behind the thousands of tech industry layoffs in 2023 and how they will impact a huge range of organizations that didn't put technology first in the past.

How Mass Tech Layoffs May Transform Mainstream Companies

I have been working In the “new media'' field for more than three decades. Over those years, there have been four times I’ve seen technology that -- from the moment I saw it -- made clear it would fundamentally change the way we live and work.

The first was the Mosaic browser in 1993, a free browser client that made the World Wide Web a reality and accessible to all. The second was the Nokia 9000 Communicator, a clamshell mobile phone with a full screen, web browser and integrated email service I saw demoed by a Finnish newspaper publisher at a conference in Europe in 1996. This was the first true smartphone, many years before the iPhone.

Also in 1996, a friend showed me a web crawler and search technology for online job listings called Junglee that was both simpler and dramatically more powerful than any “search engine” existing at the time. Junglee was a key inspiration in the founding of Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin were students/advisees of Junglee’s Stanford CompSci grad student founders), and acquired by Amazon in 1998 as a price-comparison shopper.

It’s been almost 27 years, but I’ve now seen the fourth: 

, the AI-powered chatbot that is taking the tech world by storm, and which caused the CEO of Google last month to declare “Code Red,” telling the entire company that their entire search business is now at risk.

Over the past 24 hours, I’ve asked ChatGPT to draft press releases. In all of ten seconds each to type requests, I’ve had it generate press releases better than we’ve ever written on our own. I’ve had it create pitches, financial analyses of public companies, legally tight privacy policies, executive bios and explainers designed to describe complex technology solutions to eight-year-olds (which was super-cool).

None of the requests took more than dozens of seconds to construct, and none of the outputs took more than 20 or 30 seconds to generate.

At my company's most recent weekly All Hands meeting, I told all of our employees that from that day forward, all of their jobs are going to change through AI bots. Do I think that AI tools will have a bigger impact on how we live and work than the browser, smartphone or search engine?

ChatGPT and other AI bots are revolutionizing the workplace, generating press releases, pitches, financial analysis, and more in just seconds. Companies must adapt to this game-changing technology.

Why ChatGPT's Impact Will Be Bigger Than the Web Browser, Smartphone and Search Engine

Unlike in most years, I was not in Las Vegas in early January to experience the Consumer Electronic Show. I was bummed to miss out on one of my all-time most favorite conferences and exhibitions, and on seeing so many of my friends who were there.

Still, I didn't miss out on the next generation of consumer technologies, because I spent the week of CES in South Korea. My family and I took advantage of the reopening of travel in Asia to spend the better part of three weeks traveling through Japan and Korea.

I have always been impressed with the consumer technology leadership of Japanese and Korean companies, and the breadth and depth of cutting-edge technology usage across their societies. This trip has shown me that Asian tech leadership is only accelerating.

The mobile phone apps to manage immigration and COVID clearances into each of the countries were straightforward and simple to use. And the totally automated entry into the Incheon airport near Seoul was the fastest, easiest and most automated international entry that I have ever made.

Language-translation apps for both spoken and written Japanese and Korean have not only been simplified, but their use has become routine in restaurants, stores and taxis in both the big cities and small villages we visited.

Mobile-enabled point-of-sale tech for ordering and paying at the table in restaurants -- only recently discovered in the U.S. when COVID hit -- has been available in Europe and Latin America for years, but is implemented at the next level in Korea and Japan. It’s not just the IT systems integration that’s impressive, it’s the seamless integration into the culture and operation of restaurants, and into interactions with customers.

In fact, the efficient and smart integration of all the new consumer technologies into daily life here is what strikes me the most. It’s not just about tech as a curiosity, but tech as a time-saver and helper. That element of use was missing at CES. All across the Las Vegas convention halls, you could see the new tech in amazing displays, but you couldn't see them in everyday action. That’s what’s happening in Asia.

Did I miss the massive displays of the latest TVs, gaming devices, AI-driven appliances and electric vehicles? Nope. All I needed to do was go into the Hyundai department store next to the COEX Mall. The home of the future was on display there, just up the escalator on floor 3.


Instead of serving as high-priced objects of curiosity at showcases like CES, the cutting edge in consumer tech is fully integrated into all aspects of daily life in Asia. 

How the Future of Consumer Technology Arrived Early in South Korea and Japan

Yep, it’s that time of year again: Time for some speculation on what 2023 might bring to the world of media, advertising and technology.

The ad recession will last longer than most hope.

 The recent Standard Media Index data  confirmed what most know: We’re in an ad recession, having just experienced the sixth consecutive month of declining ad spend in the U.S.

A number of ad-tech companies will be hurt.

 It’s been coming for a while, and a lot of companies got a reprieve during the pandemic, but stretched bank announcement balances, lack of public or strategic exits, and a dearth of follow-on investors in the industry will finally take its toll on the dozens of ad-tech companies currently fighting to stay afloat. Keep your eyes and ears open for staffing cuts, consolidations and shutdowns.

Programmatic ad-tech soup won’t be much clearer.

 Before the second quarter of 2023 is over, every banner-built digital ad-tech system will have appended the acronym “CTV” and the term “streaming” to their platforms, preceded by the words "purpose-built” -- which, of course, none were or will be. What’s old is new again, as it always seems to be in ad tech.

Netflix will finish the year as a video ad market leader.

 The long-awaited debutante of the video ad industry has had her coming-out cotillion. Expectations for Netflix at this point are enormous and certainly unfair, but by the end of the year, the company will emerge as a real leader in the industry -- not by the financial scale of its business, but by the impact it has on industry standards, go-to-market and thought leadership, much of this owing to having made some great picks in the senior leadership it has installed in its ad business so far.

What else do you think we’ll see in 2023?

From the impact of the recession on ad spending to the prospects for Netflix's ad tier, Simulmedia CEO Dave Morgan looks at four big trends shaping the future of TV and streaming. 

What 2023 Will Bring to Media, Advertising and Technology

Back in 2013, Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos famously said that “The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.”

No matter what you feel about the strides made at HBO Max over the past few years, it’s pretty clear that Netflix achieved Sarandos’ goal. It has become the world’s leading video subscription service and absolutely owns the same kind of premium content cachet that always separated HBO from everyone else.

Except for the very prescient work done at Hulu, most of the large media companies didn’t try to “become Netflix” until probably five years ago, as they started to lose real viewership to the service (and to Amazon Prime Video).

Of course, if these companies were totally transparent, most would admit that what they were really chasing in Netflix was its market cap. Netflix’s stock market valuation grew extraordinarily over that time period, culminating at just a shade under $700 billion.

That market cap number always came up when anyone in the press or at conferences discussed the big streaming launches by the major television and movie companies (HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, Discovery+, etc.).

Those media companies were trading on multiples of profits and cash flow -- and all of them wanted to be traded just like Netflix, at an enormous multiple to revenue and subscribers, with scant attention to profit. Of course, the potential that they each might be bought for a comparable multiple by one of the big tech/video players was a big driver as well.

How quickly times have changed. Today, Netflix has a market capitalization of $138 billion. The large TV media companies are each losing billions and billions investing in their platforms, massively cannibalizing their linear TV offerings and cinematic releases to ensure differentiation and focus for their streamers. Their market caps are also each just a fraction of where they were a few years before.

Netflix is now quite profitable, with annualized profits in the $6 billion to $8 billion range -- and, incredibly, has done that with only a single revenue stream: viewer subscriptions. With Netflix's recently launched advertising tier, we can only expect profits to go up if the Hulu model is any guide. Hulu makes more money on viewers who both pay a lower fee and take ads than those who pay premium subscription fees for an ad-free experience.

The shift of strategy at the big media companies from optimizing to being just like Netflix to achieving its stock market multiple to now being more like they used to be -- all about cash flow -- is having wrenching effects on the entire ecosystem.

The strategies of the large TV media companies of the past few years accelerated audience shifts to streaming, which meant that billions of dollars of distribution fees were lost. Now, there is a question of whether billions of dollars of advertising will be lost. For sure, many, many thousands of jobs have been lost, and that is likely to only accelerate.

I do believe that the best TV media companies will not only survive, but will thrive, as they make these shifts. But it won’t be easy, and it won’t be pretty.

 for TV and streaming advertising provides unified access to premium linear and streaming TV inventory across all networks and publishers. 

TV media companies accelerated the audience shifts to streaming, losing billions of dollars in distribution fees in the process. Will billions in ad revenue be lost next?

Why Streaming Media Companies Are Sacrificing Market Cap for Cash Flow

More than 11 years ago, Silicon valley icon Marc Andreessen famously told us that 

Over these past 11 years, Amazon’s AWS (Amazon Web Services) has definitely proven to all of us the enormous advantages of massively scaled, cloud-based delivery of software, relative to those running software in their own hardware or on subscale clouds.

Recently, AWS announced that it is offering 

Yep, two of the biggest drivers in the future of digital advertising and marketing -- analytics and privacy-protecting data matching, both in real time -- will now be just a simple configuration and button-push away for AWS customers.

Much of the world of ad tech has lived on black boxes, opacity and commingled economics with buyers and partners, while enjoying very attractive per-transaction margins (10%-90% -- but generally closer to the upper than lower). The driver? Claims of proprietary algorithms.

For sure, we’ve already seen big cloud services impact many areas of ad tech. Ad serving, creative delivery, hosted analytics, workflow automation and version control have all become simpler and cheaper with cloud delivery. But what happens when everyone can get the best algorithms in the world for almost free? That is where we’re headed.

How will we know that the AWS (or Azure or Google Cloud) ad serving, bidding or attribution algorithms are better? We will see it in campaign results. That will be super-easy for performance ads, and easier and easier for 

 ads, particularly as retail media networks become bigger and bigger players in the media mix.

Will AWS (or massive cloud competitors) eat ad-tech margins overnight? No, it won’t. But I wouldn’t bet against it for very long. And advertising will likely win when that happens. What do you think?

Now that Amazon's AWS is offering turnkey solutions for data clean rooms and analytics, the ad-tech world's profit margins will feel the impact sooner than later.

Will Advertisers Benefit at the Expense of Ad-Tech Thanks to Amazon's AWS?

TV advertising is a powerful tool for reaching a large audience and promoting a product or service. But with the ever-changing landscape of television, it can be difficult to navigate the best strategies for success. That's where 

 experts come in. These professionals have the knowledge and experience to create and execute effective campaigns that will get your message in front of the right people.

Why TV Advertising is Still Relevant in Today's Market

Despite the rise of digital media, television is still a major player in the advertising world. One of the reasons for this is its ability to reach a wide audience. According to Nielsen, the average American adult watches 4 hours and 49 minutes of television per day. This means that a 30-second ad on a popular program can potentially be seen by millions of people.

Another advantage of TV advertising is its ability to create emotional connections with viewers. Studies have shown that TV ads are more likely to evoke feelings of happiness, excitement, and inspiration than digital ads. This emotional connection can lead to increased brand loyalty and sales.

The Role of TV Advertising Experts in Your Campaign

TV advertising experts play a crucial role in the success of your campaign. They understand the ins and outs of the TV landscape, including the best times to air ads, the most effective ad formats, and how to target specific demographics.

One of the key responsibilities of TV advertising experts is to develop a strategy for your campaign. This includes researching your target audience, identifying the best channels and programs to reach them, and determining the 

. They also work with creative teams to develop compelling ad content that will resonate with viewers.

In addition to strategy, TV advertising experts also handle the logistics of running a campaign. This includes negotiating ad rates, scheduling airtime, and monitoring the performance of the ads. They use data and analytics to track the effectiveness of the campaign and make adjustments as needed.

How to Choose the Right TV Advertising Expert for Your Business

When looking for a TV advertising expert, it's important to choose someone who has experience in your industry and understands your target audience. Look for someone who has a track record of creating successful campaigns and a deep understanding of the TV landscape.

It's also important to find someone who is a good fit for your company culture and can work well with your team. A strong relationship with your TV advertising expert is key to the success of the campaign.

In addition, you should check their references and portfolio. It will be helpful for you to get an idea of the type of work they have done in the past and how they have helped other businesses achieve their goals.

TV advertising is still a powerful tool for reaching a large audience and promoting a product or service. TV advertising experts play a crucial role in creating and executing effective campaigns that will get your message in front of the right people. By choosing the right expert and working closely with them, you can achieve the success you desire.

Learn why TV advertising is still relevant and how to choose the right TV advertising expert to create a successful campaign. Discover the key to reach your target audience and boost your sales with our expert advice.

TV Advertising Experts: The Key to Successful TV Campaigns

Online marketplaces have been booming amid social distancing measures and retail store closings. Imran Khan, CEO of Verishop, an e-commerce platform that combines quality curation and discovery, joined us to discuss how to capitalize on this opportunity and turn the unexpected gains into permanent benefits.

Imran also discusses why it is essential to keep up with customer preferences in such a competitive environment, the value of diversity, and how his company, Verishop, has managed to maintain healthy growth throughout the last three months.

With recent tailwinds sweeping up brands and accelerating maturity, companies have been stuck trying to drink from a firehose. Brian Balfour, CEO and founder of Reforge, joined us to discuss how to not waste that water and transform the unexpected gains into permanent benefits.

In Reforge, Brian has built a powerful learning platform for product managers and marketers. Reforge’s programs are designed to aid professionals through ambiguity, even including Reforge alumni, our host Matt Collins. The programs do this by teaching them to turn insights into actionable strategies for compounding growth, spearheading revenue increases, and driving scalable and effective acquisitions across multiple channels as popular outlets become congested.

Powering Growth During Dynamic Times and Uncertainty

Brands need to differentiate themselves from competitors from the get-go. However, marketing is often one of the last functions that founders at tech startups hire, which can be a costly mistake.

Emily Heyward, co-founder and Chief Brand Officer of Red Antler and author of Obsessed: Building a Brand People Love from Day One, joined us to discuss the critical importance of building a brand as early as possible. Red Antler is a firm that builds “brands for startups that are changing how the world works.” She talks about the importance of having a universal problem to solve, why brands need to be consumer-centric, and what brands should be doing now to maintain good rapport with their customers.

Capitalizing on Growing eCommerce with Verishop's Imran Khan

Join Our Newsletter