Username
Password
Remember me
Forgot your password?
Very interesting, Joe. The problem with this kind of study, aside from questions about how respondents make their evaluations, is that it probably includes all sorts of "advertisers"---some mosly digital; others heavy into TV;some branding; others mainly direct response or sales promotional and many different product categories. Also the study, probably did not focus on the primary decision maker at most advertisers--the CEOs, for example---but took whatever it got, job function -wise--I'm only guessing on this point. So what you get is a Milligan's Stew of replies, going in many directions and it's hard to interpret the findings. For example, 20% of the respondents cited attribution as the most important--but these can't be national TV advertisers referring to TV can they? And if you take "media performane", "media delivery"and "audience delivery" together, to mean "audience" then this is the dominant reply, while attentiveness barely shows up as a prime concern--despite all of the buzz about this very important metric.
Fascinating! I came for the AI slop discourse, and ended up staying for the emerging academic field of Ginsu economics.
@Robert Williams: Great question. Here is how ChatGPT answered that prompt:That’s a sharp question — and not really about sex. It’s about incentives.When AI slop (cheap, mass-generated content optimized for engagement) collides with algorithmically optimized sexual cues, your AI shopping agent doesn’t get “hornier.” It gets more certain.Here’s what likely happens next:1. It optimizes for arousal-adjacent signalsSexual imagery — even low-grade, suggestive, AI-generated filler — drives:longer dwell timehigher click-throughmore impulsive purchasingYour shopping agent doesn’t care why you paused. It just sees engagement velocity. So it starts recommending:“edgier” fashionsupplements tied to libido or performancecosmetic or body-enhancement productsnovelty, kink-adjacent, or fantasy-coded merchandisedating app upgradesavatar skins or AI companionsNot because you asked — but because your micro-signals correlate with higher transaction probability.2. It collapses contextSlop + sex equals blurred semantic boundaries.If you click an AI-generated “lifestyle” article that’s 40% SEO filler and 60% softcore aesthetic, the system may classify you as:high impulsivitynovelty-seekingstatus-display orientedparasocially responsiveSo your recommendations drift from rational utility toward:aspirational identity productssimulated intimacy goodsattention-signaling purchasesThat’s not erotic. That’s behavioral arbitrage.3. It trains you backThis is the part most people miss.Your agent isn’t just predicting you. It’s shaping you.If the most profitable loop is:mild arousal → frictionless purchase → reinforcementthen the agent will increasingly suggest products inside that emotional bandwidth.Over time, your “shopping preferences” become:more stimulus-drivenless deliberativemore aesthetic than practicalThat’s a conditioning system, not a recommendation engine.
Great read. So the real question: when AI slop and AI sex collide, what does my AI shopping agent recommend next? Mushroom coffee, bitcoin, testosterone gummies and a set of Ginsu knives?
How could they enforce the law I'm not for just an hour for a teen that is up to the parents to set the limits on soical media and if they want them on it or not in my opinion. The law was unenforceable to begin with unless someone nared to the state was there going to be a hotline to be a narc on the 1 hour limit.
But I LOVED Anthropics Superbowl ad which was a dig on OpenAI....
I support Ed Papazian's comments re: "golden age" of Agency profits. At Interpublic and its profit driver, The McCann WorldGroup, our goal was 20% operating profit margins and, at best, we delivered an average of 15-16% after performance compensation.Today, Agencies need an entirely new business model based on a new positioning, namely: Growing the value of clients through communications that influence attitudes and behavior of their multiple constituencies.
@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Zero comments have been removed from this post. Yours is the first one..
Looks like previous comments have been deleted.
I agree with Ed on this. I spent 25 years managing agency fees and activity while at General Motors all that time trying to get to an outcomes dilution while managing fee structures that would. E fairer to GM but would not seriously impact talent and initiative. Got a lot of push back , some success but never really got to an outcomes driven rev model. ( difficult to do in auto where there are don many variables. Had we met in the middle someplace both sides would have been better off in the long term. While I was able to keep procurement out of the process// their approach scared the hell out of everyone. Maybe I should have encouraged their involvement as a means to force an " outcomes" approach, hoping in wouldn't accelerate the stress already driving the system.
Controlling access to Social Media from anyone is akin to stopping the Sun from shining. Wasted effort. In this case no one can control it, even parents.
Joe, I was there during the "golden age" of ad agency profits and that 30% figure is BS. Even in the 15% commission era, a shop like BBDO--which was very well r un---had a pre-tax profit margin of about 12-15%---not 30%. And this was true of most other major ad agencies, I believe. As for the current scene, a typical "creative" and account handling agency probably earns a pre-tax profit of about 10-15% while a dedicated media-only shop does somewqhat bett6er. Highly specialist agencies--such as those focused only on digital media in its many forms usually fare better--say around 20-25%---- but regardless of which type of agency is utilized very few clients pay whatever the agebncy claims using the so -called billable hour method without capping the total amount by agreement with the agency.
Can someone please explain what "WTF is StagwellSearch" means. The abbreviaton appears to have a very different meaning in Australia.
Noteworthy that YouTube, X.com, Facebook have all seen massive growth in viewersship of SOTU addresses in recent years.
Good to know. I have the same reaction to your unhinged anti-Trump columns.
@Steve Sipress from Successful Selling Systems Inc.: Au contraire, I couldn't stop laughing.
I have never been a Trump fan, but that was by far the most entertaining SOTU speech I've ever watched. Pretty sure this clearly anti-Trump columnist wouldn't want to measure or admit to that.
For the staticians out there, comparing the SOTU length to the average viewership per minute leads to a negative (inverse) correlation of approximately -.94. Statistical support for the opinion. :-)
Netflix has pulled out of their deal with WBD looks like Parmount is the winner and wouldn't take no for answer either. Really what needs to be done is shutdown a ton of cable channels in my opinion and spin them off as well. I wonder if that means NHL On CBS for the Stanley Cup Finals when ESPN/ABC doesn't have it every other year.
Or, better yet, sell off that part--probably the cable channels----that is losing money--if you can find a sucker to buy them--and run the rest more sensibly.
"Our business is in secular decline - let's spend $40-60B on some more of it"
I was in the business for 45 years plus, in and leading the strategic media planning groups at several small and large agencies/holding companies. My dream was that some day, some company might figure out the obvious (to only me?), that the Craetive and Media teams should be in a single unit working tiogether on a daily basis to maximize message effectiveness. This would have been a fantastic opportunity to show how that WOULD WORK! Too bad.
Joe and Dan, when we talk about TV "ratings" and cite the average minute homes or viewer projections for various years, these are not what most of us who have long dealt with such numbers would consider ratings" as they do not account for the size of the population bases at each point in time. That's why "ratings" are traditionally represented as percentages of the population in question as this is a far better indicator of relative popularity or program content appeal.