For all the talk about fragmentation, the real challenge with NextGen video isn’t the number of screens, formats, or platforms available to us. It’s that much of our planning thinking hasn’t evolved at the same pace as how video now behaves.
Video is no longer just a format. It’s a behaviour shaped by algorithms, addressability, and context. Video shows up across moments and environments, from long and short form scroll, creator content and premium streaming.
Audiences move fluidly between all of them. Yet too often, planning still starts with predefined formats, inherited budgets, or a channel named in the brief. The result is optimisation in silos, rather than plans designed around the outcome we’re trying to achieve.
Effective NextGen video planning requires a shift away from ‘inventory first’ thinking, and towards working back from outcomes.
Planning for outcomes, not formats
When planning begins with the question of where we should run, we immediately narrow the role video can play. A stronger starting point is the outcome itself. Are we trying to drive long‑term brand growth, accelerate consideration, deliver sales, or all three?
Working back from outcomes changes the decisions we make. It shapes how we think about creative, the signals we prioritise, the environments we choose, and how activity is sequenced over time. It also brings brand and performance closer together. Increasingly, we question whether rigid funnel thinking still reflects how people move from inspiration to action, in video environments that are personalised and heavily influenced by algorithms.
This isn’t necessarily about abandoning established principles altogether. It’s about recognising that effectiveness doesn’t always follow a neat, linear path. Lower funnel cues can play a role higher up the journey when context and attention are right. The planning task becomes less about policing stages, and more about creating the conditions for impact.
Rethinking how we classify content
Planning becomes more effective when we also change how we think about content itself. Rather than defaulting to long versus short form, it’s more useful to consider how content shows up in people’s lives. Tentpole moments, trending content and deeper library or long‑tail viewing each create very different levels of cultural relevance, attention and engagement.
The opportunity isn’t to favour one over another, but to plan across them with intent. The most effective video strategies recognise that audiences move fluidly between these moments, and that value is created through how those moments work together.
What Dentsu’s Brand Reset research helps us understand
Recent dentsu research has helped clarify why this mindset matters. Brand Reset links attention not just to short‑term response, but to long‑term brand equity and sales. We work towards a clearer explanation of why video performs differently across platforms and environments.
Digital video, including short‑form formats, delivers brand building effects. A single quality exposure can drive long‑term sales impact. Attention to quality matters as much as quantity, and voluntary attention is more effective than forced exposure when sustained. More isn’t always better considering after around 20 seconds, returns begin to diminish.
The implication isn’t to buy more video, or simply run longer ads, but to plan more intentionally for quality exposure. That means understanding where ads appear, the context they sit within, and the likelihood they’ll genuinely be noticed.
This evidence supports a move away from legacy distinctions like TV versus digital or short‑form versus long‑form, and towards a broader view of how attention is accumulated, valued and converted into outcomes.
The reality of measurement
Putting this thinking into practice isn’t always straightforward. One of the biggest challenges our agency teams face, is connecting media metrics to business outcomes.
Many brands rely on MMM models that are inherently retrospective. Others operate internal reporting systems that aren’t connected to media buying data, making it difficult to align exposure, attention, and results in a single view. First‑party data availability varies, and in some cases simply can’t be shared in ways that allow full integration.
This creates a gap between what we know works in principle and what we can prove in practice. An over reliance on any single measurement approach can reinforce old behaviours, particularly when it prioritises what’s easiest to observe rather than what’s most meaningful.
The answer isn’t to retreat to short-term proxies. It’s to be more pragmatic and more ambitious at the same time. Being pragmatic about the limits of real time outcome data, and ambitious in how different signals are brought together to inform planning decisions.
Why this shift is possible now
What’s changed isn’t just the evidence, but the tools available to planners. Measurement frameworks have matured. Attention is no longer an abstract concept. Signals can be weighed and applied more intelligently.
It’s also where algorithmic understanding matters. Knowing how platforms prioritise content and ads allows planners to work with algorithms rather than around them. The formula of aligning creative, context, and measurement to ensure the exposure is rewarded.
A different way forward
NextGen video needs planning that reflects how it actually works. Planning starts with outcomes. Planning that values attention. Planning that’s honest about data constraints, while still pushing beyond legacy norms.
Fragmentation is often framed as a problem. With the right mindset, fragmentation becomes a lever for growth rather than a barrier. Armed with the right tools, NextGen video can navigate the silos and fulfil its potential.
