It's a mix of two things: The first is searching under the streetlight: both attributable digital ads and non-attributable ads are put into a media plan with (

It's a mix of two things: The first is searching under the streetlight: both attributable digital ads and non-attributable ads are put into a media plan with (mostly fanciful) estimates and projections as to returns and value before the project starts. Then the campaigns are run, and the attributable ads are scored according to actual results, while everything else is either carried forward on the assumptions the estimates are true, assigned an arbitrary fraction of all sales/traffic, or run through some GIGO model. A lot of personal prejudice and tribal knowledge is applied here. The other, smarter instinct is that while traditional/non-digital advertising can't be finely attributed it can be monitored and audited, and this is vastly more important. Mistakes and underperformance are bounded--fraud is not. A billboard in an inappropriate place with shitty creative at least exists and has some non-zero value not that far from the best possible billboard; but fraudulent Internet advertising can just dump all your money down a hole, never be seen by a relevant human, and do nothing but give you false metrics. DVRs aren't that much of a threat -- most of what a TV ad says is that "my brand exists, I can afford TV ads, and your social circle has seen my ads" and that works at 10x speed anyway. Hypertargeting makes Internet ads worthless for that sort of positioning. (I buy internet display only right now but I used to work in a mixed team)