Debunking two of TV advertising’s biggest myths

In TV advertising, we like to talk a lot about transformation. And it’s true: The landscape is more dynamic than ever. But amid all the innovation, some old myths about the advertising and TV markets still endure. One is the idea that advertisers don’t need to invest in multiple streamers, and the other is that live content like sports and news are the only valuable commodities.

These outdated ideas continue to shape strategies and spending, often leading advertisers in the wrong direction.

As we head into fall — a critical moment for marketers ramping up for tentpole sports, seasonal retail pushes and back-to-school shopping — it’s more important than ever to ground media plans in reality.

Streaming is growing. Linear is evolving. Measurement is starting to catch up. But even with all this progress, many campaigns are still built on assumptions that don’t reflect how people actually watch TV today.

Myth No. 1: One streaming platform is enough

I often hear advertisers say they’re “covered” because they’ve bought into one premium streaming service. But let’s be honest: Do you only watch one app? Neither do your customers.

Audiences move fluidly between services like Netflix, Hulu, Peacock, Paramount+ and dozens of niche platforms, often in the same day.

And while churn in the U.S. has slowed this year (thanks largely to more ad-supported tiers being available), it’s still common for consumers to cancel and resubscribe based on preferred programming and seasonal content. A viewer might sign up for Paramount+ for the latest Yellowstone spinoff, then move on to Peacock for NFL games and then HBO Max when a new season of House of the Dragon drops.

Audience fragmentation is constant and unpredictable — and there’s still plenty of room for the biggest names in streaming to grow. According to Nielsen’s July Gauge report, Netflix represented 8.8% of TV viewing time across U.S. households, while Prime Video accounted for only 3.8%.

What advertisers should do instead: Embrace cross-platform planning and measurement. Reach your audience where they are, not where it’s easiest to buy, and prioritize tools and partners that can help you see the full picture.

Myth No. 2: Only sports and news deliver value

Sports, news and other live programming deliver big, engaged audiences and offer moments of cultural relevance that are hard to beat. There’s a reason sports dominated upfront deals this year.

But they’re not the only content that advertisers should pay attention to.

As families settle into new schedules during the back-to-school season, we tend to see an uptick in consistent, habitual viewing patterns, particularly around comfort programming and entertainment genres like reality, drama and comedy. These formats attract broad, reliable audiences and deliver the kind of regular exposure that builds brand familiarity and lift over time.

On Nielsen’s weekly streaming charts, children’s programming like Bluey on Disney+ and reality TV like Love Island USA on Peacock — and everything in between — are consistently some of the most watched shows in the U.S.

Fall is traditionally a high-performance window for entertainment franchises and seasonal programming. Overlooking these steady-viewing patterns means missing out on valuable impressions that drive long-term resonance, especially as consumers return to more structured schedules.

What advertisers should do instead: To build both reach and resonance, diversify your content mix. Keep your tentpole moments and complement them with ongoing visibility across the genres people are watching every day.

Why a unified approach matters

Audiences today are everywhere. They’re watching everything on their own time, across multiple screens and in patterns that change week to week.

Winning in this environment means dropping siloed thinking and leaning into the full viewing experience regardless of screen, service or genre.

We’ve moved past the era of either-or. The future of TV advertising is all of the above, and it’s time our strategies reflect that.

This op-ed represents the views and opinions of the author and not of The Current, a division of The Trade Desk, or The Trade Desk. The appearance of the op-ed on The Current does not constitute an endorsement by The Current or The Trade Desk.