What do you see as one of the most common mistakes advertisers make when running campaigns, particularly on TV?

I want to first contextualize this by noting that we work most often with growth brands who have roots in performance media and are trying to make the transition to higher–reach media. These brands approach TV with a classical direct–response mindset. This is one of the biggest mistakes we see. One of the most common is chasing cheap CPMs without considering the value of reach and frequency. In one instance they seek arbitrage by tossing out extremely low rates to the more premium cable networks in the DR market in the hopes that they will have luck and clear a single spot once in a blue moon. With TV, however, if you only buy one spot on a network, it won’t have a meaningful impact—especially for brands with lower levels of existing brand awareness. Consumers need to see your message with some frequency and consistency to understand or even become aware of your product, let alone take action. Conversely,  advertisers sometimes overdo frequency, attracted by dirt–cheap CPMs they are finding on small networks, resulting in ads running 300 times a week. There are only 168 hours in a week—running two ads an hour is excessive and ineffective.

Another major mistake is using the wrong measurement framework. TV’s impact is fundamentally different from digital. With digital, you can evaluate performance almost immediately—spend $20,000 today, and you’ll quickly see how it performed. However, with TV, the impact is diffused over multiple weeks. If you maintain minimum reach and frequency thresholds, the influence builds over time, making it harder to attribute sales to a specific day or spot. For example, people may not recall a Facebook ad they saw two weeks ago, but they’re far more likely to remember a TV ad because of the immersive experience and —most likely—more memorable creative. This delayed impact means TV requires a longer–term view and patience to measure effectiveness correctly.

You’ve mentioned in the past that brands sometimes focus on the wrong priorities. Can you expand on that?

One of the biggest mistakes we see is brands focusing on media objectives instead of business outcomes. This often comes from a performance marketing mindset, with over– reliance on short–term sales and overly deterministic measurement. For example, it’s reasonable to use platform level ROAS as a metric for optimization. If you’re running on FB this is likely what the algorithms are optimizing against– which is great when comparing against tactics within FB, but it’s a terrible metric for determining overall business performance. Advertisers realize this when they segment out Remarketing from Prospecting, but we still see them coming back to the ROAS when trying to make a case for investment – mainly because they don’t have a number that can account for how these tactics affect the overall business.

Instead of focusing entirely on platform metrics, brands need to prioritize topline revenue growth. Mid–market companies care about business outcomes and not about whether they are able to spend on Facebook while achieving a $1 ROAS. While this might sound obvious, you’d be surprised how many advertisers get stuck on efficiency metrics or short–term wins. At the end of the day, it’s about aligning media strategies to drive productive business growth— not chasing cheap metrics or immediate performance. When brands make this shift and focus on revenue as the North Star, they’ll see far more meaningful results.

What’s the impact of poor targeting in TV advertising, and how can brands fix it?

Some brands immediately discount TV because of the inherent “waste” involved in trying to reach everyone, but we would argue that for relatively broad reach products and services, the economics of waste can still work in your favor. Let’s take dog food for example. While the primary buyer of dogfood is women with children in the home, there are large swaths of other potential buyers. So while these other buyers might convert at lower rates in the short term, reaching them is a “value add” benefit of linear that must be factored into your economics.

While linear does lack HH level targeting, it doesn’t mean you can’t increase the odds of limiting waste through the use of audience planning tools. By looking at the propensity of certain networks and dayparts to reach different audience populations, you can improve your targeting at the same time as enjoying the natural spill of the broad reach medium. Ultimately, this needs to be juxtaposed with alternatives such as streaming television (CTV) which can offer the same attentiveness levels with the addition of HH targeting. Keep in mind that CTV targeting, unlike social channels, do not offer person–level targeting. So while streaming does have stronger targeting capabilities than linear, you pay a hefty price for those data layers and cannot be sure you are reaching the individual in that household who fits your target.

While it may seem counter–intuitive to fix poor targeting, products and services need to focus on networks with scale. For example, if you add spots on a larger network like CNN, you’ll actually reach incremental viewers and grow your brand. The key is prioritizing networks with the audience size and reach necessary to drive real impact. While demographic indexes and targeting still matter, the bigger priority in TV should be maximizing reach and connecting with a broad, scalable audience.

How important is it to adapt advertising to changing cultural or social climates?

It’s important for brands to navigate cultural and social climates carefully, but it’s also a nuanced challenge. Brands must ensure their advertising aligns with their target audience’s values without alienating their buying audience or conflicting with their corporate values. We’ve seen situations where coastal–based marketing teams—often in cities like New York or San Francisco—reflect their instincts or behaviors in campaigns instead of relying on data– backed research. The reality is that coastal values don’t always align with the broader, mass– market American audience. Tools like MRI and quantitative research are essential for ensuring that campaigns reflect the audience’s values rather than personal biases.

Ultimately, this is more of a brand and communications challenge than a pure media question. Navigating the diverse values of your target audience is a tough needle to thread, but brands that approach it thoughtfully, with a focus on audience data rather than personal assumptions, are far more likely to succeed.

Can you share how inconsistent branding impacts a campaign’s success?
Inconsistent branding can undermine a campaign’s success by disrupting the customer journey. If your TV creative looks different from your social ads or your website, it creates confusion and reduces trust. For example, someone might see a compelling TV ad, visit your site, and find mismatched messaging or offers, which weakens the connection. If you don’t have creative aligned across channels then retargeting on social could add to the inconsistency, further reducing effectiveness.

This is particularly important for emerging brands who may lack the awareness that can implicitly act as the through line in message for larger brands. These emerging brands need to ensure that they are reassuring their audience along the journey so they don’t get lost in confusing messaging or mistaken for a competitor. With limited budgets every touch matters and consistency is what makes it effective.

What’s your advice for brands trying to avoid these pitfalls?
Brands need to embrace intellectual humility—a core value to Eden that we think is critical in today’s complex media landscape. Consumption patterns, audience behaviors, and advertising economics are shifting constantly. What worked even a year ago may only be half as relevant today. For example, ad–supported streaming is rising, audience migration is changing, and CPM comparisons are evolving daily. The key is to recognize what you don’t know and stay open to new strategies, data, and insights. Don’t forget that measurement models are transforming with advancements in data privacy and more restrictive regulations, so brands can’t rely solely on past experiences. Instead, they need to lean on experts, remain agile, and continually reassess their approach to keep pace with the changing landscape.