Three TV Headlines That Matter Right Now, And What They Mean For Advertisers Planning Ahead

If you struggle to understand where TV fits in your Media Plan, you are not alone.

How we define ‘TV’ – its measurement and the pressure to prove effectiveness, have never been more challenging. Over the last couple of weeks, three headlines have cut through that noise and revealed something important about where advertising is heading.

Not because these headlines are dramatic on their own, but because together they expose a growing gap between how people actually consume video, how brands are expected to measure it and what creativity is supposed to achieve.

Here are the three stories you should be paying attention to, and why we believe they should prompt marketers to rethink TV.

1. Barb stepping back from YouTube measurement highlights a measurement problem, not a platform problem

In the summer of 2025, Barb, the UK industry’s standard for understanding what people watch, brought YouTube viewing on TV sets into its measurement tracking. This was a huge signal to the industry that YouTube viewing sat shoulder to shoulder against traditional channel viewing and should be treated as an equal when reviewing the landscape, both from a planning and measurement point of view. However, two weeks ago, YouTube chose to pull out of being included within Barb. 

YouTube’s decision has been framed as a YouTube issue. But is it? In reality, it’s a symptom of something much broader.

Today, a viewer of “TV” is no longer in a static environment. In a single evening, a viewer might move between broadcaster content, long-form YouTube, live sport and creators – often on the same screen. From an audience perspective, that behaviour feels natural.

For the industry, it’s inconvenient.

Today, planning and reporting frameworks still rely on rigid definitions and consistent datasets. It’s outdated compared with how viewers act. They’re built for a world where channels behaved differently and in isolation, when attention was easier to categorise.

The result is a growing mismatch between what’s being consumed and how value is being assigned. It creates a false pressure point as brands try to force every video environment into the same measurement logic, only to feel disappointed when the numbers don’t line up neatly.

What the industry needs to bear in mind is that not all TV-like activity is designed to drive immediate, attributable outcomes. Some of it is there to build memory, trust and familiarity over time. Treating that as a weakness rather than a strength leads to the wrong conclusions and, often, the wrong optimisation decisions.

2. In-game advertising in the Six Nations shows how scarce live attention has become

Live sport has always been premium. What’s changed is how far broadcasters are willing to go to monetise it.

The introduction of in-game advertising during the Six Nations feels like a boundary being tested, nudging closer to US-style formats where the action itself becomes part of the ad space.

That tells us something important. Live sport remains one of the few environments where attention is shared, viewing is simultaneous, and audiences are emotionally invested in what’s unfolding.

But it also raises a critical question for brands. When does presence tip into intrusion?

In-game formats can work when they feel additive, contextually relevant and respectful of the moment. When they don’t, they risk being ignored at best and resented at worst.

What’s important for us to bear in mind as more of these formats emerge is that the challenge is deciding whether the attention you’re buying is genuinely high quality, not just high profile.

3. The Super Bowl reminds us that creativity still wins attention, but clarity builds value

Every year, the Super Bowl gets the creative industry buzzing. The mega-premium inventory doubles as an (expensive) creative stress test. This year, the contrast between ads like Claude and Coinbase were particularly telling.

Claude stood out by resisting the urge to shout. It acknowledged real anxieties around AI, avoided over-polishing, and trusted the viewer to engage without gimmicks. The result was work that felt clear about what the brand stood for and why it existed.

Coinbase leaned once again into cultural reference and nostalgia. While it echoed the spirit of their earlier work, this execution felt less connected to what the brand wanted people to understand or remember.

The lesson here is about sequence. The strongest brands use salience to earn attention, then clarity and storytelling to earn memory. When one is missing, effectiveness suffers.

What these stories tell us about planning TV properly

Taken together, these moments point to a shift that shapes how we’re talking to our clients about TV.

TV and Connected TV (CTV) are increasingly amplified by performance channels. As a result, there’s growing pressure to prove impact quickly. And there’s a real need for measurement frameworks that acknowledge time lag, not just immediate response.

TV often plays a primary role in building a brand, with its influence on the lower funnel unfolding over time. Those effects are linked, but they don’t happen at the same moment. Ignoring that relationship leads to flawed analysis and short-term decision-making.

The brands that will benefit most are the ones willing to accept that not everything shows up instantly in a dashboard, plan TV as part of an integrated system rather than a standalone channel, and invest in creative that earns attention and leaves something meaningful behind.

TV hasn’t lost its power. It’s simply asking us to be more honest about what it’s for, and more considered in how we judge success.

If you’re figuring out how TV fits into your 2026 plans, or questioning how to measure its impact more realistically, we’d love to talk. You can also explore more thinking like this in our latest insights.