The new TV experience
Article 2 of 2 in series: The Great Trust Shift
– why my neighbour would never have done it…
After I wrote about my new TV and the almost magical installation experience, I met my neighbour on our usual walk. He’s a game developer and software engineer, and he understands technology at a level where I often stop asking follow-up questions because I know I won’t fully grasp the answer. He had read my post, and there was one thing that clearly bothered him: that I had connected my new TV to the WiFi without hesitation and accepted the terms along the way without reading them in detail.
Control as a principle
For him, it was almost incomprehensible. He didn’t say it dramatically, but with calm conviction (after all, he is British…), he would never do that. He has no need for anyone to register what he watches or when he watches it. He has no interest in his television becoming an active node in a network that collects signals about his behaviour. It’s not paranoia – it’s control. He understands how much data modern devices can generate, and he consciously chooses to minimise that footprint.
I understood him. Intellectually, it makes sense. Every time we connect a device to the internet, we accept that our behaviour may be logged and structured. The QR codes during installation and the many “accept” buttons are not just technical formalities; they are entry points into a system where usage, preferences, and exposures become data. I clicked through because I wanted the frictionless experience. He would have stopped.
Did I really have a choice?
When I later reflected on the installation, it struck me that it might not have been a real choice in practice. Could I have used my new TV fully without connecting it to the WiFi? Could I have accessed streaming services, French channels, CTV (connected TV) apps, and user profiles without accepting the terms? Technically perhaps, but functionally no. Modern televisions are designed as connected devices. The ecosystem assumes login, identification, and consent. Without it, the screen would be reduced to something far less compelling.
Naturally, my perspective is shaped by my work. As CEO of a company that works on cross-media measurement in the advertising industry, I know how extensive compliance efforts have become. GDPR is not an abstract concept in my world. It’s contracts, audits, documentation, data processing agreements, and governance frameworks. I’ve seen how much advertisers and platforms invest in meeting requirements around consent, transparency, and data minimisation. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, but it does mean it isn’t unregulated.
My neighbour sees privacy as the absence of measurement. I see privacy as regulated measurement. He seeks maximum control by standing outside the system. I accept being part of it, with the expectation that the frameworks are enforced and continuously improved. Both positions are rational. Both are informed by knowledge. But they lead to different everyday choices.
Between trust and convenience
Ultimately, this may not be about technology at all, but about trust. The modern media experience – personalised recommendations, seamless streaming, dynamic advertising, integrated platforms – is built on data. The question is no longer whether data is used, but whether we trust that it is used responsibly and proportionately.
On our walk, we didn’t reach an agreement. But I went home with a deeper awareness of the tension between principle and practice. Between the desire for control and the desire for convenience. Between consistently protecting one’s privacy and accepting that a connected experience comes at a cost.
Where cross-media measurement fits in
What’s interesting is that it’s precisely within this tension that cross-media measurement plays a role. Not as surveillance, but as structure. In a world where the same content and advertising are delivered across linear TV, CTV, and digital channels, there is a need to understand the whole picture without compromising the individual.
Good cross-media measurement isn’t about knowing everything about one person. It’s about understanding patterns at an aggregated level so that advertising can be delivered more efficiently and with less waste. It’s about managing frequency across platforms so that the same individual isn’t exposed unnecessarily. It’s about transparency and documentation, enabling advertisers and media owners to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.
My neighbour would prefer a world with much less measurement. I work in a world where measurement is inevitable – but must be designed responsibly. Perhaps that’s where the compromise lies. Not in rejecting technology, but in shaping it so that it balances relevance with respect.
And perhaps it is precisely in that balance that the future of media will be defined.
This article is 2 of 2 in our series: The Great Trust Shift
About this article series
In a privacy-first world, measurement is no longer defined by how much data is collected, but by how responsibly it is handled. In this article series, AudienceProject explores why trust has become the foundation of modern cross-media measurement - and why the future belongs to frameworks that are transparent in methodology and built to protect both client value and consumer data.
You might also like:
Signup for the AudienceProject newsletter
Industry relevant articles, truth-revealing studies, exiting new product launches and random thoughts from brilliant people - directly in your inbox. Free of charge and no spam guaranteed!