Comscore’s Frank Friedman On Building A Smarter TV Currency
This Innovator Spotlight excerpt is from our new Special Report, Currency Reimagined: What Matters Most In The Age Of Streaming
“There are so many different ways to evaluate what something is worth,” said Frank Friedman, Chief Data and Analytics Officer and Head of Measurement at Comscore. “But if we’re going to have a functioning cross-platform ecosystem, we need a currency that connects the dots—one that’s transparent, fair, and actually usable across the entire transaction chain.”
We sat down with Friedman to talk about why real change in measurement and currency hasn’t materialized as fast as the industry hoped—and what needs to happen to fix that.
ALAN WOLK (AW): Let’s start with the basics: how do you define currency, and how is it different from measurement?
FRANK FRIEDMAN (FF): Currency is how we value inventory and transact. There’s a value exchange involved, and that’s fundamentally different from measurement, which is about understanding audiences—who’s watching, how engaged they are, what platform they’re on. The challenge is that we don’t have universal alignment between digital and linear, and that creates winners and losers—intentionally or not.
AW: You’ve worked on both the buy and sell side. What motivated you to come to Comscore?
FF: I’ve been a longtime supporter of this currency from both sides of the table. I’ve been able to actually get adoption from buyers and sellers, which is rare. But I also wanted to really understand what’s holding adoption back—especially on the agency side. Coming here gives me a chance to help solve for that from the inside.
AW: What do you think is the biggest blocker to true currency adoption?
FF: There’s a lot of industry talk about using multiple currencies, but not a lot of actual follow-through. The blockers vary depending on who you’re talking to, but they often boil down to workflow. We need transparency and fairness in how things are valued, and the ability to post performance. But if the data doesn’t flow into the right systems, that breaks down. That’s where currency and measurement meet—in the actual execution.
AW: You mentioned different methodologies. Can you break down the pros and cons of some of those?
FF: Sure. You’ve got panel-based approaches, which are often treated as a “truth set,” but they’re not. The question is whether they’re truly representative—can you project those audiences confidently? Panels involve a lot of modeling, and that modeling isn’t always scrutinized.
Big data has its own issues. Some people use it to supplement panels, but that only works if the panel can hold the weight. And big data is messy. It needs to be cleaned up before it’s usable, and the partners providing it don’t always do that. So, you end up with transparency issues either way.
AW: Let’s talk about agencies. What’s holding them back? Is it just inertia?
FF: As someone who lived in that space for many years, I can tell you it’s not about laziness or resistance to change. There’s just a lack of appreciation for how much those folks are being asked to do. Teams have been gutted, and procurement is constantly raising expectations. A lot of people don’t want to work in local or legacy media groups because they’re overwhelmed by manual tasks—paperwork instead of strategy.
At Publicis, we built an ecosystem that automated those manual processes so people could actually use their brains. That kind of transformation is possible, and I think AI might be the thing that saves media planning. Not by eliminating people, but by freeing them up to do meaningful work. But to make that happen, we have to remove some of the biggest blockers—starting with how data is handled. If data can’t be moved, analyzed, or compared freely, AI doesn’t work. And if vendors try to restrict that, the industry needs to push back. We won’t survive without open, interoperable systems.
AW: What are some of the tech-layer obstacles?
FF: There are too many toll gates. You’ve got platforms like WideOrbit and Mediaocean sitting between planning and execution, and the friction is enormous. It shouldn’t cost more to administer a plan than to deliver the media. We need to fix that.
AW: How about the sell side? What are the major roadblocks there?
FF: Honestly, they’re not that different. I expected more of a divide when I moved from buy to sell, but the challenges are the same—just mirrored. One big issue is translation. If a publisher prices in one currency and a buyer wants another, there needs to be a way to convert between the two.
But if the currency is erratic—if it’s not projectable—then publishers get stuck making makegoods to cover underdelivery. That’s not sustainable. We need more stable, predictable methodologies that don’t wreck the inventory supply.
AW: With digital platforms setting their own standards for what counts as a “view,” is there a risk that TV will just follow their lead?
FF: That’s the fear. Currency is supposed to provide a standard so we can trade fairly. But when platforms start inventing their own rules—half a second counts as a view, that kind of thing—it creates chaos. Linear has been getting the short end of the stick here. If a digital impression counts after one second, why are we holding streaming or linear to a different standard?
AW: Do you think there’s a real appetite for a universal standard, like the one the MRC proposed?
FF: There should be. The MRC has issued a cross-platform standard. Why aren’t we talking about it more? That’s a question we should be asking clients and agencies. Let’s stop talking out of both sides of our mouths. If we want consistency, it’s time to align.
AW: So what’s your definition of currency?
FF: It’s the agreed-upon way we assign value to media across platforms. Attention matters. Engagement matters. But if we’re going to connect programmatic and linear and everything in between, we need a single connective tissue. That’s what currency should be.
It’s not for the faint of heart. A lot of apple carts will get upset in the process. But there has to be fairness. You’ve got the client, procurement, agency, planner, buyer, seller—and then finance needs to reconcile the whole thing. If we don’t all agree on what something’s worth, the system falls apart.
AW: Is AI going to help us get there?
FF: It has to. The next generation is coming into this industry with AI baked in from day one. They’ll have better tools, better models, and maybe fewer hangups about how things used to be. But for AI to work, we need good data—and that means cooperation and transparency.
AW: So how do we move forward—what’s the fix here?
FF: We all have to live in the same ecosystem. What’s most interesting to me is how quickly things have changed—and that pace is only accelerating. The migration to new models is happening fast, and if we’re not working together, certain groups will take advantage of that and run ahead. Whoever has the data is going to win. That’s why cooperation matters—not in theory, but in practice. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough voices in the industry talking about fairness for the whole system. Too many are just focused on whatever serves their own best interest. That’s what we have to change.
