My understanding is that even broadcast television advertising can be pretty well targeted based on the show's demographic profile, the viewership of the statio

My understanding is that even broadcast television advertising can be pretty well targeted based on the show's demographic profile, the viewership of the station/channel, known DVR usage trends, and the viewer's location. Surveys on brand awareness and recall can be delivered locally to confirm the ad was seen. The larger the company (large scale means more likely to do broadcast TV advertising), the more they can control other advertising channels in order to test whether the advertising is showing lift locally. There is a whole industry and 50+ years of experience using these things to gauge advertising effectiveness, so the limitations and usefulness is pretty well understood. Then the internet comes along and digital advertising is promoted as being better at all types of advertising (which of course its not). And its new (new is risky/scary) and no one knows if exposure to digital advertising has the same "brand awareness" lift as non-digital, or how to quantify that. The results have been mixed. P&G recently announced they would dramatically scale back social advertising because they determined it wasn't effective. So its on digital to prove its value, and the argument becomes "direct correlation/clicks" is proof, which is fine. Some people accept that and some don't. In 50 years, the limitations and usefulness of digital will be pretty well understood, but in the meantime, advertisers need more than "its new" to trust it.