Upfront 2015: CBS Seen Closing With Lower Volume

Courtesy of CBS

CBS is seen closing upfront sales with lower volume, according to media buyers and other executives, who describe a marketplace in which Madison Avenue is earmarking fewer dollars for TV advertising and also placing more money against new forms of digital media.

“Agencies and clients continue to value the strength, stability and delivery that our schedule provides, and are increasingly committing dollars against C7,” the network said in a statement, referring to a measure of ad viewership across seven days after an initial air date.  “Looking ahead, ‘Thursday Night Football’ and our new latenight lineup will help us build on our number one position and bode well for us throughout the year.”

In last year’s upfront, CBS secured between $2.38 billion and $2.64 billion, according to Variety estimates. Speaking to investors in September, CBS Corp. CEO Leslie Moonves said the network had seen a dip of between 4% and 5% in the volume of advance advertising commitments it had secured, compared to the $2.5 billion to $2.75 billion in commitments it attracted in 2013.

If CBS were to have followed a similar pace of business in this year’s negotiations, the network could have secured between $2.26 billion and $2.53 billion in advance advertising commitments, according to Variety estimates.

CBS made a push to secure increases in the cost of reaching 1,000 viewers, a measure known as a CPM that is integral to these annual discussions between advertisers and TV networks. Ad buyers suggested CBS was doing deals with CPM hikes of between 3% and 4%, though a person familiar with the situation CBS also sought agreements that called for CPM increases in the mid-single-digit percentage range.

The amount CBS held back for so-called scatter advertising, or ad inventory that is not purchased in advance, could not be immediately learned. In 2014, CBS  sold approximately 74% to 75% of its advertising inventory, compared with a more typical 79%, Moonves disclosed last year.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. michael s says:

    Numbers are fun! Lets focus on percent of increase instead of total amount made. Yesterday’s look at ABC made them sound great leading in percentage of increase. Of course you are ignoring where the story is.
    For example, lets say (keeping the math simple) ABC sold CPM for $2 per last year and have increased it to $4 this year. That is an increase of 100 percent. Winner! Lets say CBS sold CPM for $5 per last year and have increased it to $8. ABC has increased its price for CPM by a larger percent than CBS but CBS is still making twice the money that ABC is.
    So how about reporting upfront sales based on what the networks are making or charging more than the percentage of price increases?

    • Brian Steinberg says:

      Michael S., a very good idea, and I’m all for more transparency in reporting on the upfront. But it’s hard to focus on total amount made for several reasons: a) it’s not a number that is made available from reliable sources during “upfronts”; b) upfront numbers do not represent money in the bank. They are, instead, meant to detail the amount of advertising commitments the networks have secured. These “commitments” can be pulled at some or several points during the programming year. The best thing to do is look for an annual number ascribed to advertising revenue in a fourth-quarter financial release and use that.

      Thanks for reading

      • michael s says:

        Thank you for your response, Brian. It is hard to cover most business, TV included, when the most important fact – what and who makes the most profit – is not publicly shared or in case of Hollywood shared with almost as much myth and creativeness as Hollywood’s product.

More TV News from Variety