Credit: Nabil Saleh via Unsplash
Australia's media agencies broadly support TV's push for collaboration, but warn the industry's real barriers are structural, not narrative, and won't be solved without global platforms at the table.
That Future of TV Advertising conference in Sydney saw broadcasters argue that working together on measurement, trading and accessibility could help claw back advertising dollars shifting elsewhere.
Sue Cant, head of investment at This Is Flow, said the conversation had moved on from whether TV works.
"This isn't about whether TV still works; it's about whether it works well enough in a market that now expects simplicity, speed, and accountability as standard," Cant told AdNews.
Carolyn Northcote, media and investment partner at Avenue C, the AdNews Agency of the Year, is blunt.
"I'm currently unconvinced," she told AdNews.
"There were declarations of collaboration from multiple players, but none were up on stage with the likes of Google or Netflix, and I'm unsure how anyone could create a 'universal' dynamic or programmatic buying tool without either of these vendors."
Collaboration without the biggest players may fall short, Northcote said, pointing to past attempts where tech moved ahead of practical integration, leaving tools that "fail at true collaboration from the get-go".
Frank Carlino, head of investment at Carat, takes a measured view of the collaboration push. The tone at the conference, he said, was not about newfound harmony but about aligning to shared challenges, fragmentation, dominant platforms and transparency.
"Overall, the push for collaboration does feel deliberate and defensive, it is grounded in strategy rather than promotional spin," Carlino told AdNews.
Tom Macerola, Sydney head of investment at Zenith Australia, agrees there is intent behind the push but says the proof will be in the execution.
"There's definitely solid intent there, so the real test will be how this translates into execution," Macerola told AdNews.
He points to VOZ as a cautionary example.
"It was positioned as a collaborative step forward but ultimately didn't land uniformly across the market. Collaboration only works if it delivers for all stakeholders in practice," he said.
Cant sees genuine intent behind the push but stops short of calling it proven, describing the collaboration story as a mix of both substance and spin.
"I can see that there's genuine intent there and that's been driven by the reality that broadcasters have to collaborate more if they want to remain competitive in such a fragmented market," she said.
"No single network can offer the scale, data, and simplicity that global platforms now provide on their own."
The industry's track record gives Cant pause.
"The industry has been talking about 'collaboration' for a very long time, and to date, progress has been slow," she said.
"It needs to show up in a tangible way, such as shared measurement, simplified buying, consistent data frameworks, it needs to change the whole buying experience. If not, the risk is that it feels more like narrative than reality."
Meerkat Media co-founder and executive chair Lee Stephens sees structural barriers that won't be solved by intent alone.
"Broadcasters are right to identify measurement as the reason for FTA TV's declining market share," Stephens told AdNews.
"The reason is advertisers want more transparent measurement."
Stephens said the industry has long lived with imperfect measurement, but the shift in viewing behaviour has raised the stakes.
"The whole industry knew that the measurement of TV reach and frequency was patchy… We were certain however that people were watching," he said.
"That is no longer a guarantee."
Stephens draws a sharp line between large advertisers and the rest of the market, arguing most cannot afford uncertainty.
"For advertisers spending less than $20 million per annum accurate measurement and proven reach is important. Budget wastage can be fatal," he said.
"Unfortunately for FTA TV, these advertisers make up 90-95% of the Australian media market."
Measurement sits at the centre of the debate, but agencies suggest it is only one part of a larger shift. Cant said improvement has not kept pace with what marketers now expect.
"Measurement has no doubt improved, but it's still not operating at the level of consistency, granularity, or speed that marketers now expect," she said.
"Measurement gets the headlines, but it's the clunky end-to-end experience that's really costing TV dollars. Fixing measurement is critical, but it needs to be part of a broader simplification of the entire ecosystem."
Macerola argues Australia's measurement infrastructure is not the core problem.
"From a traditional media perspective, Australia has one of the more robust TV measurement systems globally. That isn't the core issue," he said.
For Macerola, the harder challenge lies in what measurement is being asked to do.
"In a world of trading total video, linear TV and BVOD are part of a bigger pie. The measurement of their slice of pie is straightforward, but trading their slice when we are buying a whole pie of video assets still isn't quite that easy," he said.
"Various advertisers define success differently, so measurement needs to be built in collaboration with agencies and marketers rather than as a one-size-fits-all currency."
Enigma Media managing director Amy Dascanio said collaboration is necessary, but not sufficient.
"I think all the TV executives know collaboration is no longer optional if the industry wants to stay competitive, but the execution is the real challenge," Dascanio told AdNews.
"My concern is that if collaboration stops at measurement and trading systems, it won't be enough to win back ad dollars."
Dascanio points to a broader competitive reality: digital platforms have not just taken share, they have changed how advertising works.
"Money hasn't just 'left TV', platforms have created entirely new revenue streams by being easier to use, optimise, and prove results, especially for performance and SME advertisers."
Cant, who operates without holding company scale, said the structural problem cuts across agency size.
"TV buying still leans heavily on relationships, experience, and manual processes which means it can feel opaque and resource-heavy, particularly for mid-market clients or those newer to the channel," she said.
"If TV were genuinely easy to buy, we wouldn't still be having this conversation."
Northcote said buying itself is not the issue for experienced hands, but confidence is.
"I do believe that advertisers & buyers might struggle with trust of TV data & that definitely can make TV buying challenging."
Carlino said progress on accessibility is real but the finish line remains some distance away.
"TV advertising is finally starting to feel less like rocket science, but it's not quite 'one-click easy' for advertisers. Programmatic TV is emerging, but it's not yet as smooth or self-serve as social or display ads," he said.
Macerola raises a barrier that rarely makes headlines.
"One of the less talked about barriers is production for small-scale businesses, which can inhibit their participation,” he said.
“While the mechanics of buying have evolved, there is still work to do to make the channel feel truly accessible end-to-end.”
Stephens said tools such as Nine's ad platform have improved access, but smaller advertisers still compare TV to platforms offering real-time feedback.
"It's a case of some data is better than none," he said.
Agencies agree global platforms are taking dollars, but not in a simple one-for-one shift. Cant said the shift is more structural than it appears.
"We know that some dollars have shifted directly, particularly performance-driven budgets that now favour platforms offering immediacy, targeting, and clear attribution," she said.
"But a lot of the growth in global platforms isn't just 'TV money moving', it's new money, or money reallocated from across the entire mix, including search, social and even trade or promo budgets for specific brands.
“TV networks just haven't always evolved their proposition fast enough to compete for them."
Macerola is equally emphatic that the dollar shift is not linear.
"Global platforms have expanded the market, often capturing budgets that wouldn't have historically gone to TV," he said.
"Search is a good example of something that was never directly competing with television, but platforms have set a benchmark in areas like targeting, flexibility and attribution that has reshaped expectations across the board."
His answer to that challenge is a total video proposition.
"A platform that enables agencies and marketers to buy and optimise across BVOD, SVOD, AVOD, Foxtel, short-form and long-form would be a very interesting proposition," he said.
Northcote points to fragmented viewing outside major events.
"Yes, I believe they have been, but that's where the audiences are now," she said.
Stephens is more direct on where budgets are heading.
"YouTube is taking valuable dollars from TV and Meta is trying to get into the game," he said.
Cant said local content matters but cannot carry the argument alone.
"Local content drives cultural relevance, trust, and shared national moments in a way global platforms simply can't replicate," she said.
"That absolutely matters for certain brands and categories. But on its own, it's not enough to win back spend.
“Advertisers ultimately balance three things: reach and attention, targeting and efficiency, and measurability and outcomes.
“Local content strengthens the quality of attention but it doesn't solve the structural challenges around buying and measurement."
Northcote points to consistent performance in audience data, arguing local programming dominates viewing.
"Our locally produced programming is what fills the VOZ programme rankings week in and week out," she said.
Stephens frames local content as essential to the business model.
"Local content franchises such as MAFS, the Block and Australian Idol are essential components for each network's profitability," he said.
"Without local content, maintaining a profitable advertising yield would be very difficult for Australian broadcasters."
Dascanio agrees, placing it within a broader mix where effectiveness still counts.
"Video in particular TV/VOD/SVOD, have a real advantage in attention, exposure and memory building… particularly sport and sponsorships, so local content does still matter," she said.
Macerola said local content is a genuine point of difference, particularly where broadcasters can offer something global platforms cannot.
"Local content is a genuine advantage, particularly in areas like sport, news and current affairs where broadcasters can deliver consistent, highly engaged audiences," he said.
"The ability for brands to integrate meaningfully into local environments is where broadcasters have a real edge, particularly compared to global streaming platforms that can deliver valuable scale but not always the same level of integration."
TV has value, agencies suggest, but must translate it into a buying system that competes with digital on simplicity, flexibility and accountability. Cant said the task is modernisation, not defence.
"The opportunity isn't to defend TV's value, it's to modernise how that value is packaged, bought, and proven in a way that competes with the ease and effectiveness of global platforms," she said.
Dascanio said to regain a larger share of advertising spend, broadcasters need to update and streamline the way TV, BVOD and SVOD inventory is traded.
"Until it's as simple, flexible, and accountable as the digital platforms, I feel it will continue to fall behind," she said.
Cant lands in the same place.
"I believe that the opportunity for this type of collaboration is real and the intent is there, but until collaboration shows up in how TV is actually bought and measured, it's still more promise than proof."
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.