So, let me say ‘thank you’ to CBS on behalf of the millions (I am betting that there were millions) of consumers who took advantage of the live stream. It certainly provided consumers the flexibility and choice we deserve when it comes to watching the biggest sporting event in the country.

Now, if you were only watching the big game on your tablet that would be fine. You would be very, very happy.

However, I made the mistake of having the television on at the same time as having the live stream on my iPad on my lap (I am sure many others did this as well).

The issue - and I don’t know if it was my connection or the WiFi I was on or if it is a technical limitation of live stream - but the stream to the tablet lagged the television coverage. It was not a short lag, it was considerable. At one stage in the first quarter, I got out the stop watch and timed it. The lag was 21.7 seconds. This was essentially streaming one play behind the live coverage on the television.

This made it impossible to have both the tablet and television on at the same time. And you guessed it, the big screen eventually won.

That said, I did like the fact that you had access to a curated Twitter feed and the commercials that you could play on demand on the tablet.

Perhaps the most exciting innovation was the ability to switch between camera angles at will. It certainly made me feel like I was in control of what I wanted to watch. There was a second or so between the camera angles switching but nothing that marred the experience.

At the risk of looking stupid, the only other thing that I had an issue with was that I could not watch the game on the full screen. Try as I might, I could not find a way of expanding the picture to the full screen. It might be able to be done, but for the life of me I could not figure it out. I am sure someone from CBS will call me out on this.

Overall, I must say I was excited to watch the game on my tablet. We should be able to watch everything on live on tablet. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of live sporting events that are not available. At least there is one network that gets it. Congratulations CBS. Great game!

The irony is that theater owners are doing the thing that TV networks used to be able to do quite well: monetize a captive audience. Mr. Gianopulos told the truth -- people don't like having their attention hijacked. Just because they are captive doesn't mean they will accept being hawked at.

The NY Times article that reported this implies that Mr. Gianopulos issued this statement as a partial explanation for the 20% Q1 decline in theatrical revenue. If people are so upset about ads screaming at them that they will avoid seeing a first run movie in its exclusive theatrical run, what does that say about ads on television shows that you can watch off-network the next day?

We are seeing more and more disputes between cable operators and networks over carriage fees. The reason for this is that ad-supported networks are preparing for the day when they can’t support the cost of programming through ad revenue. In fact, they already rely on carriage fees. But as more and more viewers look at cable only as a pipe filled with shows and live viewing dwindles, the audience is skipping the ads. As advertisers realize that so many of the impressions they are buying are being delivered but not seen, the advertising income line on a network’s balance sheet will soften. That loss will need to be made up somewhere else, and the most obvious else is carriage fees.

We have been studying the audience that is removing itself from interruptive advertising’s reach and it is a very large audience. They aren’t cutting the cord because the cord brings them the shows they want. But the DVR and the various streaming sources and non-television platforms allows them to watch 4 hours of shows in 3 hours by skipping the commercials. Very efficient. Good news for the cable providers, bad news for the ad-supported networks.

Look for these battles to become more frequent, but the war is over what bucket of money pays for the programming that comes through the pipe. The viewer started this war, so while we may feel like innocent victims when we can't watch the MLB Playoffs or the Oscars we have to acknowledge that this is a war of our making if not our fighting. Perhaps another way to support programming will emerge. A la cart cable subscriptions, micro-payments for shows... who knows? But at the end of it we will likely have fewer commercials in our lives but higher out of pocket fees if we want that pipe. And if we get off the pipe entirely and there's no more revenue from either ads or carriage fees supporting the programming, then "what's on" will change drastically. We started the war and we will finance it too, one way or another.

In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge pronounced a benediction on the business of advertising:

"Advertising ministers to the spiritual side of trade. It is a great power that has been intrusted to your keeping which charges you with the high responsibility of inspiring and ennobling the commercial world. It is all part of the greater work of regeneration and redemption of mankind."

Between 1926 and today, we proceeded dealing with advertising as if it was more science than art. Reach and frequency were introduced, new metrics like GRP and TRP started to dominate the language of the business and now we measure our reach in terms of impressions. Coolidge's idea of inspiration and spiritual redemption through advertising was replaced by spreadsheets, perspiration and a dominance of left-brain thinking.

Is Advertising Art Or Science?

If advertising is a matter of data and science, why do we remember an Apple commercial from 1984 that ran once? And why do I get so annoyed when I see the same, mediocre ad over and over again, behaviorally targeting the hell out of me and perfectly aligned with reach and frequency formulas? I would argue, there's an advertising world outside of science. It's called creative innovation.

The advertising industry underwent already a creative revolution in the 60s and 70s with the likes of Bill Bernbach, Mary Well and later Chiat, Freeman and Clow. Just to name a few. And the digital revolution was supposed to be the next creative revolution. Unfortunately, it turned into a data and tracking revolution, transforming the bean counters into masters of the universe.  The lack of creative innovation is truly astonishing compared to the science part of advertising which has improved exponentially over the year. Neuroscience and Behavioral Economics add new layers of advertising science to the mix. While creative innovation is stuck in 300x250 hell. For some reason, we tend to have no problems with a mediocre creative execution as long as the media plan/communication plan is stellar. Have we just given up hoping for superior creative products or are our expectations too low?

It seems, we tend to believe that mediocre ads can be helped with the crutch of frequency. "Well, the ad is pretty lame but as long as we can push the message 7 times in a week, we should be good." We seem to forget that each impression equals investment. Real money that moves from brand to publisher and agency. Ending up in absurd situations where brands are not willing to spend $50k for a better video execution but have no problems investing $500k in additional media.

What brands should do

Here's the challenge each brand should give to their agency: Create work that only needs to be viewed once. It should be fresh. It should be relevant. It shouldn't be stuff that the competition does because it worked for them. It should be work nobody has ever seen before. It shouldn't be good, it should be awesome. Something you want to share with the world immediately. And, if you have limited budget: Don't skimp on the creative. Make the media team work harder. There are so many opportunities in paid, earned and owned media to explore, it allows brands to re-allocated funds from media to creative incrementally. Often providing a much better ROI.

Current frequency and reach formulas are based on the assumption that the creative product is mediocre. Basically, brands are paying a pretty expensive fine each time they run mediocre ads. Why continue paying that fine when you could avoid it by creating something inspiring?