The New TV: fragmentation, friction and the future of brand attention

Their conversation reflected an industry wrestling with the realities of content fragmentation, the limits of current measurement, the rise of adblocking, the evolving balance between linear and digital platforms and the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence. What emerged was a picture of a medium that is no longer singular but increasingly behaves like a constellation of touchpoints that brands must understand holistically.

Fragmentation is no longer a trend; it is the baseline

The panel began by reflecting on the news that BARB will now incorporate YouTube viewing into its panel-based measurement system. For many, this development simply formalises what audiences have known for years. The boundaries between broadcast TV and digital video have dissolved.

Sarah Flannery of Jellyfish made the point clearly. “We are all watching different things on different platforms and that is the reality of modern media consumption. I think we get too hung up on the label of TV. YouTube is not just TV in the traditional sense. It is TV and more. It is a mass reach platform that competes with broadcasters and at the same time gives advertisers a canvas that can flex across strategic goals, formats, audiences and levels of investment. It is an evolution of television rather than simply a challenger to it.”

For younger audiences, the distinctions are invisible. Annie Bank described the way her children navigate content. “They went through every episode of Bluey on Disney+ and Peppa Pig on Netflix. Then they discovered YouTube Kids and it did not register as a different medium to them. For them, it is the same screen in the same room and it simply offers more episodes than the streaming platforms. They are platform agnostic. They treat YouTube as an extension of the TV set rather than a separate category of content.”

For broadcasters and advertisers, that seamlessness introduces complexity. Andy Benningfield observed that the quality of the content and the quality of the environment still matter greatly. “The way people consume advertising has changed massively. I believe brand building still requires strong creative in premium environments and that is something linear and BVOD still deliver. Clients now want short-term results across fragmented platforms as well as long-term brand effects and there is a role for everything. The challenge is using each channel for the right reason rather than assuming TV always comes first.”

Measurement is lagging behind reality

If fragmentation is the new norm, then measurement remains the industry’s greatest bottleneck. Agencies have never had to plan across so many screens, platforms and formats and the tools for doing so remain patchy.

Neal Fetterman was unequivocal. “As a TV planner, I need unified measurement across screens. If I run a campaign across linear, YouTube, Twitch, CTV and gaming I need to know who it is reaching uniquely and at what frequency. That capability does not really exist yet. Until it does, every campaign feels like stitching together multiple data sources and hoping the overlaps are minimal. Holistic planning requires holistic measurement and we are some distance from having that as standard.”

Dhiyay Chohan explained how this affects advertisers outside the top tier. “We work with a lot of SME clients in the United States who use CTV to reach Hispanic audiences. We use DSP data, publisher data, geo-targeting and genre insights to find the right viewers in the right locations at the right time. But the measurement varies dramatically by platform, which makes outcomes harder to judge. Traditional linear is cost-prohibitive for many of these brands. CTV allows them to play but only if the targeting and measurement are accurate enough to demonstrate impact.”

For Michael Chisvo, the answer may lie in AI-driven planning systems. “At LG, we are training agents that can plan and buy media using deterministic TV data. We can see streaming versus linear behaviour and we know which ads people have been exposed to. What this means is the role of the human specialist will change. You will still need advertising expertise, but it will sit alongside TV agents who know how to optimize spend across the device. The technical evolution is happening, but the biggest challenge is interoperability between platforms that want to stay as walled gardens.”

Adblocking and subscription tiers complicate the economics

As platforms introduce more ad tiers and more viewers pay to actively avoid ads, the panel debated the long-term implications for advertising-funded models.

Flannery challenged the assumption that ad-free audiences represent a structural threat. “YouTube’s business model is a three-way exchange between creators, audiences and Google. If they leaned too heavily into subscription, they would undermine the creator economy that built the platform. Premium is small. The commercial engine remains advertising. The bigger issue is how advertisers adapt their planning to the flexibility YouTube offers because it provides reactive options that linear TV was never designed to deliver.”

Benningfield believes churn is the bigger concern. “People sign up for platforms, binge a show, cancel and jump somewhere else. Programmatic can push prices down, which risks broadcasters devaluing their core product. If you can buy ITV content on YouTube at a lower cost than on ITV X, you create pricing pressure that affects how premium content is monetised. Broadcasters need to manage their distribution carefully.”

Fetterman added that paying extra for lighter ad loads is rarely cost-effective for advertisers. “Ad lite sounds good for viewers, but from a buying perspective, the premium is not worth it. It reduces the scale you can achieve while increasing the cost per impression. It rarely justifies itself.”

Gaming is forcing a redefinition of TV

One of the most energetic parts of the discussion concerned gaming and live streaming. Maciej Sawicki argued that for younger audiences, gaming is already the new television.

“Gaming live streams function exactly like TV for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Millions gather to watch streamers, fund them directly and interact with them. It is a hybrid of a TV presenter, a celebrity and a community leader. Advertisers often underestimate how significant that is. Traditional TV was built around mass audiences. Gaming creates thousands of niche audiences that are just as engaged. The mechanism is the same. People watch and discuss content. They simply do it in smaller groups. The opportunity for contextual advertising is enormous, but the measurement and buying structures need to catch up.”

Chisvo added that gaming is a core behavior on the television itself. “Around forty per cent of our TVs register gaming activity each month. Narrative games are cinematic experiences. That is time spent on the biggest screen in the home and it should be counted as part of the TV strategy. The challenge once again is how to measure and integrate it beside linear and streaming.”

Linear still holds cultural power
 

For all the excitement around digital video, the panel agreed that linear TV retains a unique advantage. It is still the only environment that can deliver mass cultural moments at scale.

“Linear is not dead,” said Chisvo. “It still commands the biggest cultural events. The Euros, Wimbledon, the Olympics. These are not experiences that people want fragmented across different platforms. When there is no big event, people may default to streamers, but for branding and reach, linear remains essential.”

Annie Bank noted that the United States demonstrates how durable linear can be. “We work with gaming clients whose key audience is women over 55. For them, linear TV is a gold mine. Integration into shows like Good Morning America or American Idol delivers attention in a way that streaming services cannot match. Those viewers are engaged and responsive and the scale is unmatched.”

Benningfield pointed to the women’s Euros final as the clearest example. “17 million people watched it on linear and three and a half million watched on ITV X. No other medium can buy that reach. Broadcast still plays a crucial role in the media mix when the objective is cultural scale.”

Flannery argued that linear should no longer be the default starting point, though. “Rather than planning TV first and digital second, we should start with total video behavior. Once we understand the full pattern of viewing, then we can decide where linear fits. It remains powerful, but it is one part of a much larger ecosystem.”

AI will reshape production and planning

The final segment of the roundtable focused on how artificial intelligence is poised to change creative production and personalisation.

Flannery set out her view. “We need a communications hierarchy. The great 30-second TVC will continue to exist because it builds emotion and identity. But AI gives us the ability to produce variations without drowning in cost. It is not about an ad for every individual in a creepy one-to-one sense. It is about smarter sequencing, better tailoring and storytelling that fits across touchpoints. AI becomes a calculator that lets us do more with the same budget.”

Chisvo sees AI as a democratising force. “Historically, a small brand would struggle to afford a TV creative. With AI, they can produce three or four variations in the time it used to take to produce one. That opens up the medium to more advertisers. The creative bar can be met by more businesses.”

Sawicki argued that younger audiences care less about production polish. “Gen Z is used to creator-made content. They care about authenticity and value, not perfect lighting or expensive sets. AI reducing production costs is useful, but the challenge is ensuring the creative idea actually brings value to the audience.”

Chohan highlighted the barriers. “As much as we want to create more relevant ads, walled gardens limit the data we can access. The potential of AI is constrained by the availability of the data it needs. You can have the best AI-driven creative in the world, but if the platform restricts the signals, then it cannot be as relevant as it should be.”

Benningfield concluded with a note of caution. “Over-personalisation feels intrusive for many consumers. People find it unsettling when ads follow them too closely. Strong creative placed in the right environment still matters more than algorithmic precision. There is plenty of bad advertising out there. AI will not fix that unless the creative idea itself is strong.”

TV: a medium reborn

The picture that emerged from the roundtable was one of a medium that has expanded into multiple forms without losing its cultural significance. Fragmentation has created complexity, measurement is struggling to keep up, subscription tiers introduce new economic pressures and AI promises both efficiency and disruption. Yet the central principle remains. Television, in all its forms, still delivers attention and still shapes culture.

As Maciej Sawicki observed, people still talk about what they watch. They simply do so in fragmented communities rather than unified national conversations. That fragmentation is both the challenge and the opportunity for brands.

And as Sarah Flannery concluded, the question is no longer whether YouTube or gaming counts as TV. The real challenge for marketers is understanding total video behaviour. That is the new TV and it is where the battle for attention will be won.