new

To the naive mind collecting data sounds like science. It is not. A datum is the result of an instance of observation. But observations do not become science until they are made sense of. People observed the movements of planets for thousands of years. They kept intricate charts. But for all those years no one could explain the seemingly incomprehensible movement of those planets. And then Copernicus came along and in one simple theory explained what for millennia seemed beyond comprehension. The planets moved the way they did because they were circling the sun, not the earth. That's what science does. It takes data and makes sense out of it. Today the advertising industry has unimaginable quantities of data and hardly an ounce of science. Ask any advertising person for data about the Google or Facebook buy they made and you will get reams of papers and stacks of charts and tons of reports. You will get a festival of data. Then ask that person to name one - just one - major consume...

It's very simple. Facebook is way too powerful to be run by a jerk like Mark Zuckerberg. While Zuckerberg has shown himself to be capable of creating a financial juggernaut, he has simultaneously shown himself to be utterly inadequate to handle the responsibilities of managing an organization with the power and influence of Facebook. Or even understanding what the responsibilities are. The ease with which Russian operatives manipulated the Facebook platform has only two possible explanations. Facebook was either negligent or stupid. In light of the stakes, either of these is sufficient grounds for Zuckerberg's removal. If we had a sensible government they would be looking into Zuckerberg's role in the Russian exploitation of Facebook. What did he know and when did he know it? What did he do about it? - The indictments handed down by the Justice Department give us substantial reasons to believe that crimes were committed on the "buy" side. The question is, were c...

Marc Pritchard, chief brand officer for Procter & Gamble, made a big splash last year when he stood up before the annual IAB conference and lambasted the online ad industry. Pritchard said the industry was “ murky at best and fraudulent at worst” and "It's time to grow up. It's time for action... the days of giving digital a pass are over." According to Ad Age, P&G, "vowed to no longer pay for any digital media, ad tech companies, agencies or other suppliers for services that don't comply with its new rules."  Recently, however, Pritchard has been far more gentle -- one might even say strangely sympathetic -- in his statements about the online ad industry. According to AdAge, Pritchard recently said he has "little reason to make good" on his threats of last year. He said... "...I’m encouraged by the progress made over the past year to clean up the digital media supply chain, driven by the entire industry stepping up to take ac...

This is gonna be fun. I'm about to enter a contest called "The Q Award" sponsored by Ad Age and Quantcast (they do media hocus pocus with AI) that could win me a trip to Cannes and some kind of Grand Prize. I am compelled to enter this thing because it would allow me a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sip putrid rosé with everyone in the world I've ever insulted. The contest goes like this... "The Q Award Details We are looking for people who challenge the status quo, question everything and strive to break conventional wisdom. The winning team will have discovered new insights and implemented a new strategy, campaign or product that ultimately resulted in increased brand awareness, growth and sales." Am I crazy, or is BadMen a slam dunk to win this fucking thing? Just one little hurdle: Somewhere along the line I've probably called everyone on the judging panel a dickhead or an imbecile.