WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.840 Music. 00:00:09.770 --> 00:00:14.650 And welcome to the edition podcast, the final episode of 2024. 00:00:15.270 --> 00:00:19.470 I'm going to be, by the time you listen to this, eating some mince pies, 00:00:20.370 --> 00:00:23.510 counting portions of leftovers, all sorts of things. 00:00:23.670 --> 00:00:27.370 I'm very much looking forward to a little break over Christmas. 00:00:28.250 --> 00:00:32.810 Joining me today is Mark Stenberg, who I don't think ever has a break. 00:00:32.990 --> 00:00:36.270 You just work and publish stories the whole time at Adweek, don't you? 00:00:37.270 --> 00:00:40.010 Yeah unfortunately i mean actually we do get a we get a 00:00:40.010 --> 00:00:42.930 nice little christmas break coming up but uh besides that 00:00:42.930 --> 00:00:46.030 no no rest no rest for the wicked mark 00:00:46.030 --> 00:00:48.950 is of course a brilliant media reporter at ad week uh 00:00:48.950 --> 00:00:51.850 one of my all-time favorite guests on the show as i always have 00:00:51.850 --> 00:00:55.710 to say when he's on because we always have such good conversations on 00:00:55.710 --> 00:00:58.730 all manner of topics but because it is the end 00:00:58.730 --> 00:01:01.530 of 2024 we're gonna have to do the only thing that's 00:01:01.530 --> 00:01:05.910 right and proper which is do a review of the year and you and I were sort of 00:01:05.910 --> 00:01:10.570 talking about different trends we've seen and noticed over the course of the 00:01:10.570 --> 00:01:14.570 year and you suggested a few things I came up with a couple but let's start 00:01:14.570 --> 00:01:20.290 with a couple of the things you were interested in because there's a lot going on. 00:01:22.730 --> 00:01:27.050 You wanted to talk really about downsizing immediately because you see you report 00:01:27.050 --> 00:01:33.150 on a lot of these stories day in day out companies laying off people getting smaller etc 00:01:33.350 --> 00:01:36.110 yeah well and and 00:01:36.110 --> 00:01:39.010 as you were kind of saying i i just am i'm also doing 00:01:39.010 --> 00:01:41.810 several sort of end of the year stories and have been having a 00:01:41.810 --> 00:01:44.970 lot of conversations about what were the sort of defining trends and 00:01:44.970 --> 00:01:48.110 uh i think just downsizing continues to 00:01:48.110 --> 00:01:51.350 be a massive one honestly in basically every space 00:01:51.350 --> 00:01:54.430 media or media adjacent uh we've had 00:01:54.430 --> 00:01:57.170 a round of layoffs several rounds of layoffs within the 00:01:57.170 --> 00:02:00.010 last few weeks and looking back at this 00:02:00.010 --> 00:02:03.050 time last year there was layoffs this time last year 00:02:03.050 --> 00:02:07.050 and it's basically just sort of a perpetual uh reduction 00:02:07.050 --> 00:02:10.070 merry christmas you've lost your job yeah it's 00:02:10.070 --> 00:02:12.990 not very uh you know 00:02:12.990 --> 00:02:17.570 optimistic but i do think that that continues to be a trend unfortunately so 00:02:17.570 --> 00:02:25.370 um i sadly agree with you and frankly the numbers make it impossible to disagree 00:02:25.370 --> 00:02:32.630 we there's too many stories too many publications where we see this going on do you have any hope, 00:02:33.230 --> 00:02:38.830 that that can turn around in 2025 there are for example some brilliant media 00:02:38.830 --> 00:02:45.170 startups that look for people both in the UK and the US but do you think it 00:02:45.170 --> 00:02:48.230 can turn around more sector-wide industry-wide. 00:02:49.848 --> 00:02:53.568 I mean, the short answer is no. I don't think it turns around. 00:02:53.708 --> 00:02:57.208 I don't think we ever staff back up. 00:02:58.168 --> 00:03:02.368 I'd like to think that hopefully we're continuing to downsize to a certain point 00:03:02.368 --> 00:03:07.688 where then it sort of stops or at least slows significantly in its contraction. 00:03:07.688 --> 00:03:10.448 But um you know and there are to your point 00:03:10.448 --> 00:03:13.488 there's certainly new startups um and those do inject 00:03:13.488 --> 00:03:16.368 you know new roles into the world and get 00:03:16.368 --> 00:03:19.428 people jobs but i don't think that it gets 00:03:19.428 --> 00:03:22.168 us back to the levels that we've seen 00:03:22.168 --> 00:03:25.388 in the past i think it adds a few new jobs but it's yeah it's 00:03:25.388 --> 00:03:28.668 a reduction across the board because 404 media 00:03:28.668 --> 00:03:32.568 for example have done great stuff this year they have 00:03:32.568 --> 00:03:35.528 oh my gosh they have but what they're like four people right there 00:03:35.528 --> 00:03:39.348 are six people or something you know it's i mean incredibly small team all 00:03:39.348 --> 00:03:42.228 the news orgs all even the the startups that 00:03:42.228 --> 00:03:46.148 are the most promising they're incredibly lean you know so even the new companies 00:03:46.148 --> 00:03:52.168 they're not i mean compared to the sort of media behemoths of the past i mean 00:03:52.168 --> 00:03:58.468 we're seeing several dozen people are running or you know compose the entire 00:03:58.468 --> 00:04:02.068 company nowadays rather than hundreds of thousands so yeah yeah Of course. 00:04:02.228 --> 00:04:06.248 I mean, even we think of the big quote unquote media startup, 00:04:06.448 --> 00:04:07.728 Semaphore, Puck and so on. 00:04:08.668 --> 00:04:15.108 They're also the ringer. No, well, ring is a bit bigger, but the Ankler, they're all. 00:04:16.567 --> 00:04:22.927 Part of they're all quite small ultimately yeah when i was just reporting on this big, 00:04:23.787 --> 00:04:26.927 acquisition earlier this week of these two massive holding codes 00:04:26.927 --> 00:04:30.707 ipg and omnicom and 00:04:30.707 --> 00:04:34.127 uh you know so much of the rationale is we can 00:04:34.127 --> 00:04:37.847 have all of the clients and do it with half the staff you know i mean it's just 00:04:37.847 --> 00:04:43.127 that's the the trend of anything touching the media technology spaces we don't 00:04:43.127 --> 00:04:46.687 need as many people as we used to unfortunately indeed and your colleague david 00:04:46.687 --> 00:04:52.027 cohen is reported just a thursday before we recorded that the media brands are 00:04:52.027 --> 00:04:53.747 going to lay off 103 staffers, 00:04:54.367 --> 00:04:58.987 at least i think that's the tip of the iceberg or tip of the spear or whatever 00:04:58.987 --> 00:05:04.067 um yeah i think we're gonna see a lot more layoffs yeah it's kind of depressing 00:05:04.067 --> 00:05:08.767 but hopefully well i'm determined to keep us positive as it's the holidays but 00:05:08.767 --> 00:05:12.667 we can't ignore the reality that the industry is downsizing. 00:05:13.207 --> 00:05:17.127 I agree with you. I hope it finds a plateau. I hope we get more exciting startups, 00:05:17.667 --> 00:05:22.407 that do stuff and provide even small numbers of jobs in different places. 00:05:22.407 --> 00:05:25.847 So we'll have to keep an eye on that in 2025. 00:05:26.507 --> 00:05:30.987 But there's no doubt 2024 has been a year of, again, of layoffs. 00:05:32.207 --> 00:05:35.607 You also wanted to talk about short form video. 00:05:36.607 --> 00:05:42.387 Obviously, TikTok is now huge. There's a row going on in the U.S. about banning it. 00:05:42.547 --> 00:05:46.227 I thought Donald Trump didn't like it, but now he seems to like it. 00:05:47.107 --> 00:05:51.267 It's all very odd and confusing. Just quickly, by the way, do you think that 00:05:51.267 --> 00:05:52.547 TikTok ban will actually happen? 00:05:55.736 --> 00:06:01.756 What a good question. If I were to bet, I would say that no, 00:06:01.936 --> 00:06:03.296 I don't think it will happen. 00:06:03.916 --> 00:06:09.536 Personally, I feel like I don't know how. I don't think it will be upheld by this. 00:06:09.676 --> 00:06:12.756 I think it's going to go potentially to the Supreme Court, but I don't see how 00:06:12.756 --> 00:06:17.716 this isn't a violation of First Amendment rights. So I don't see from a legal 00:06:17.716 --> 00:06:21.136 perspective how it could end up being banned unless they really cast it as a 00:06:21.136 --> 00:06:22.316 national security concern. 00:06:22.456 --> 00:06:27.956 And then you'd have to make a very strong case that that's definitely occurring. 00:06:28.276 --> 00:06:31.636 So I don't know. Under Trump, it's obviously impossible to predict. 00:06:31.636 --> 00:06:37.396 But I think that we hit that January 19th deadline and then there's an extension 00:06:37.396 --> 00:06:41.456 granted or something along those lines to kick the can a little further down the road. 00:06:41.636 --> 00:06:44.156 And then it gets addressed at some point in the future. 00:06:45.296 --> 00:06:48.276 I'm looking forward to having you back on the show once it gets 00:06:48.276 --> 00:06:51.356 banned in the u.s um i'm just 00:06:51.356 --> 00:06:55.056 actually saying on video because i wanted to talk about streaming as 00:06:55.056 --> 00:06:58.396 i always do and i want to talk about sports streaming as 00:06:58.396 --> 00:07:01.816 i always do uh this year for 00:07:01.816 --> 00:07:05.156 me was a really big year for street sports streaming 00:07:05.156 --> 00:07:07.996 and the services showing that they are 00:07:07.996 --> 00:07:10.876 credible uh you know suppliers and owners of 00:07:10.876 --> 00:07:14.196 sports rights uh let's ignore uh 00:07:14.196 --> 00:07:16.956 tyson uh mike tyson and jake paul 00:07:16.956 --> 00:07:19.716 for a bit uh because that was not did not 00:07:19.716 --> 00:07:22.796 go well and it's a bit pathetic but talk about 00:07:22.796 --> 00:07:29.496 real sporting events think the olympics for me in the us which went on peacock 00:07:29.496 --> 00:07:34.636 and from everything i gather was incredibly popular on peacock it was on there's 00:07:34.636 --> 00:07:39.956 a lot of action on discovery plus here as well it was a huge moment for Peacock, 00:07:40.076 --> 00:07:40.856 wasn't it? The Olympics. 00:07:42.036 --> 00:07:45.436 People seem to be really get into it and America doesn't always get into the Olympics. 00:07:47.319 --> 00:07:49.999 Yeah absolutely um i mean i feel like peacock did a 00:07:49.999 --> 00:07:52.879 really good job with how they presented it how they marketed it 00:07:52.879 --> 00:07:56.199 um i feel like it kind 00:07:56.199 --> 00:07:59.059 of came during a time of the year i think when people 00:07:59.059 --> 00:08:02.439 were particularly receptive to it um decent time 00:08:02.439 --> 00:08:05.179 zone yeah i think that was a big 00:08:05.179 --> 00:08:08.819 part of it for sure i think it being in paris and just the 00:08:08.819 --> 00:08:12.299 sort of familiarity and affinity 00:08:12.299 --> 00:08:15.199 that a lot of americans have for western europe and france and 00:08:15.199 --> 00:08:17.879 paris in particular all played a role um but yeah. 00:08:17.879 --> 00:08:20.759 I mean i think as a from a consumer perspective i think that was 00:08:20.759 --> 00:08:23.659 uh they had a lot of really interesting new ways 00:08:23.659 --> 00:08:26.879 of taking this massive chunk experience and 00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:30.159 really kind of trying to personalize it inject a lot of personality into 00:08:30.159 --> 00:08:32.899 it um so i think it was like it's a 00:08:32.899 --> 00:08:35.979 money losing operation isn't it like overall i 00:08:35.979 --> 00:08:38.799 or did i can't remember if i i read something along 00:08:38.799 --> 00:08:43.559 those lines that it's effectively like a marketing type exercise 00:08:43.559 --> 00:08:47.439 rather than like a profit center yeah um but 00:08:47.439 --> 00:08:50.559 i think that that was a a huge win for for peacock 00:08:50.559 --> 00:08:54.139 and kind of showcase that these real 00:08:54.139 --> 00:08:57.219 tentpole sporting events can be 00:08:57.219 --> 00:09:00.499 massive massive draws for streamers yeah and 00:09:00.499 --> 00:09:03.319 on christmas day a little bit after this 00:09:03.319 --> 00:09:06.199 show goes out uh netflix is showing 00:09:06.199 --> 00:09:09.679 two nfl games across christmas 00:09:09.679 --> 00:09:17.259 day um that's going to be a very big deal as well um people will be on you know 00:09:17.259 --> 00:09:23.239 taylor swift watch because kansas city chiefs are one of the teams just and 00:09:23.239 --> 00:09:24.439 people will also be let's be 00:09:24.439 --> 00:09:29.499 honest on buffering watch because you really don't want that to go wrong. 00:09:30.368 --> 00:09:34.828 Yeah. Yeah. Right. I mean, that's kind of the theoretically Netflix has been 00:09:34.828 --> 00:09:40.268 using some of these live sports events and just live events like the Tom Brady 00:09:40.268 --> 00:09:45.908 roast and all these things as practice to kind of iron out some of the kinks 00:09:45.908 --> 00:09:48.788 from a technical perspective, from a production perspective. 00:09:48.788 --> 00:09:53.688 But I do know with the NFL games, it's partnering with some production experts, 00:09:53.748 --> 00:09:56.368 I think from CBS or whatever the case might be. 00:09:56.508 --> 00:10:02.828 So I think that in terms of the presentation of the game, things should be pretty, pretty smooth. 00:10:02.828 --> 00:10:09.828 But yeah, in terms of the technical capacity, we will see what they're able to do. 00:10:09.828 --> 00:10:14.028 And I feel like with Amazon Prime Video and its success with Thursday Night 00:10:14.028 --> 00:10:20.408 Football, there really is a great comparison point for how people expect these to look. 00:10:20.568 --> 00:10:24.228 And it's no longer, even though it's, you know, sort of new for Netflix, 00:10:24.268 --> 00:10:27.768 it's not new for Peacock. It's not new for Prime Video. 00:10:27.948 --> 00:10:31.448 I mean, this isn't necessarily breaking new ground from a consumer perspective. 00:10:31.448 --> 00:10:33.808 So they have, there's a high bar. 00:10:34.088 --> 00:10:37.568 You know, there's not going to be as much patience for screwing up a football 00:10:37.568 --> 00:10:41.168 broadcast. I mean, because other places are doing that well consistently. 00:10:41.588 --> 00:10:46.288 I think there'll just be zero tolerance for it. If you make them miss a massive 00:10:46.288 --> 00:10:49.688 Patrick Mahomes touchdown pass, people are going to be mad. 00:10:51.288 --> 00:10:55.148 Yeah. Oh, my gosh. I couldn't even imagine if it came down to a close game. 00:10:55.568 --> 00:11:02.288 People will be furious. There were problems. Yeah, that would be terrible PR prices for Netflix. 00:11:02.728 --> 00:11:07.848 Yeah, it really would. I think that as an audience, we've got more acceptance 00:11:07.848 --> 00:11:09.968 of sport on streaming services. 00:11:10.288 --> 00:11:14.588 You know, here in the UK, there are two blocks of games over the Christmas period 00:11:14.588 --> 00:11:15.608 of Premier League football. 00:11:16.088 --> 00:11:20.848 That's on Amazon Prime Video now. There's one Champions League match a week 00:11:20.848 --> 00:11:23.688 that's on Amazon Prime Video, not TNT. 00:11:24.088 --> 00:11:29.068 So we, I think, as a global audience are getting just more used to watching 00:11:29.068 --> 00:11:33.148 big sporting events on a streaming service. It's becoming less and less weird, right? 00:11:34.221 --> 00:11:40.001 Yeah. I mean, I still feel like that leads to questions about consolidation. 00:11:40.181 --> 00:11:44.541 I mean, the pain point of having to subscribe to six different services to access 00:11:44.541 --> 00:11:48.261 all the sports that you want to watch is increasingly becoming a little bit too much to bear. 00:11:48.261 --> 00:11:51.021 You see youtube tv increasing its price kind 00:11:51.021 --> 00:11:54.021 of as a result of the increased cost of content so 00:11:54.021 --> 00:11:56.861 i think that we're going to start seeing a lot of 00:11:56.861 --> 00:12:01.841 people safe at needing all these subscriptions and that really facilitating 00:12:01.841 --> 00:12:07.101 some of this some of this come together within that space um by the way i saw 00:12:07.101 --> 00:12:08.881 the youtube tv price rise that's 00:12:08.881 --> 00:12:15.861 ten dollars a month that's quite a meaningful rise yeah um No, it's a. 00:12:16.481 --> 00:12:19.701 I think that there was also these conversations around, I mean, 00:12:19.781 --> 00:12:25.681 not to like go too far afield here, but the linear viewership versus the streaming 00:12:25.681 --> 00:12:30.201 viewership and how many people are going to cut cable and move over. 00:12:30.201 --> 00:12:35.781 And I think everybody's been acting as if eventually cable is going to be a ghost town. 00:12:35.881 --> 00:12:39.481 But then I was seeing some some thinking from analysts over the last two weeks 00:12:39.481 --> 00:12:44.901 that was like, well, actually, maybe there is, I guess, a floor for linear television 00:12:44.901 --> 00:12:48.361 viewership that isn't as low as we'd thought. 00:12:48.361 --> 00:12:53.361 Maybe people just I think the number being floated was 60 or 50 million or something like rather. 00:12:53.361 --> 00:12:56.281 Maybe there's a percentage of people who just stay 00:12:56.281 --> 00:12:59.441 with linear and they were saying it is sports viewers 00:12:59.441 --> 00:13:03.261 uh because it is potentially 00:13:03.261 --> 00:13:06.381 getting to a point where it's more cost effective to watch sports with a cable 00:13:06.381 --> 00:13:10.921 subscription than it is with all these different streaming subscriptions yeah 00:13:10.921 --> 00:13:16.021 yeah and i wonder that's that's an interesting wrinkle in this thesis of well 00:13:16.021 --> 00:13:19.581 if you get the sports rights then people will consume your streaming service 00:13:19.581 --> 00:13:21.041 or they'll subscribe to it or whatever, 00:13:21.641 --> 00:13:24.401 there's like a balancing act of, well, if you need. 00:13:25.489 --> 00:13:28.249 Eight different streaming services is that cheaper than 00:13:28.249 --> 00:13:30.969 cable so until those kind of from a 00:13:30.969 --> 00:13:33.689 price point become a little bit more favorable we might not 00:13:33.689 --> 00:13:36.709 see the linear decline as quickly as we thought it 00:13:36.709 --> 00:13:39.409 would uh that it'll be really interesting in 00:13:39.409 --> 00:13:42.329 2025 when more rights come up i assume there'll 00:13:42.329 --> 00:13:44.989 be something obviously the battle over the nba is still 00:13:44.989 --> 00:13:47.769 going on isn't it between warner brothers discovery and 00:13:47.769 --> 00:13:50.729 the nba uh all of that's going to be very interesting 00:13:50.729 --> 00:13:53.529 to watch but i've really started to notice this year 00:13:53.529 --> 00:13:57.049 how embedded into our sort of 00:13:57.049 --> 00:14:00.569 viewing culture sport on streaming services is and 00:14:00.569 --> 00:14:03.409 i do think in the us the olympics was a big part 00:14:03.409 --> 00:14:06.269 of that a few of the themes you raised with 00:14:06.269 --> 00:14:08.989 me are actually related and kind of all part 00:14:08.989 --> 00:14:12.489 of the same conversation so a pivot to paywalls uh 00:14:12.489 --> 00:14:19.769 the death of search um and the subsequent really this decline in traffic uh 00:14:19.769 --> 00:14:25.849 which i think are all kind of linked together so do you think we really have 00:14:25.849 --> 00:14:30.449 seen more and more paywalls established what who are the biggest names to your 00:14:30.449 --> 00:14:32.229 mind that brought in paywalls this year. 00:14:33.129 --> 00:14:35.969 Yeah i think paywalls and or you 00:14:35.969 --> 00:14:40.669 have in a lot of instances places emphasizing that 00:14:40.669 --> 00:14:43.809 they welcome reader support whether or not they're actually gating 00:14:43.809 --> 00:14:49.029 their content explicitly um i think you Vox is the big one that comes to mind 00:14:49.029 --> 00:14:54.629 because they've famously had no paywalls across any of their sites except for 00:14:54.629 --> 00:14:59.949 New York Mag and in the last year or so have started asking for money on Vox 00:14:59.949 --> 00:15:01.909 and then just introduced the Verge subscription, of course. 00:15:02.009 --> 00:15:04.409 Yes, I noticed that. 00:15:05.658 --> 00:15:08.498 Uh i mean axios kind of comes to mind a little bit too 00:15:08.498 --> 00:15:11.198 they don't have a paywall but they have all these 00:15:11.198 --> 00:15:14.518 membership programs that they're increasingly trying to funnel people toward 00:15:14.518 --> 00:15:20.838 um so i could think of others if uh i put my mind to it but i think that there's 00:15:20.838 --> 00:15:27.378 been a general sort of consensus of the fully ad supported model just cannot 00:15:27.378 --> 00:15:32.378 work um and there are a few holdouts and And it maybe will work for a few of 00:15:32.378 --> 00:15:33.478 the largest publishers, 00:15:33.818 --> 00:15:35.998 but unless you're one of them. 00:15:36.658 --> 00:15:40.058 You're probably going to have to solicit reader support somehow. 00:15:40.298 --> 00:15:43.338 And I think you even have The Guardian offering this interesting use case of 00:15:43.338 --> 00:15:47.558 they have this guilt wall or whatever they call it, where it's like you've read 00:15:47.558 --> 00:15:51.538 X number of articles, but they're even starting to paywall some of the specific 00:15:51.538 --> 00:15:55.058 properties, like their food property, I think is $3.99 now per month. 00:15:55.058 --> 00:15:59.538 So there's a lot of this like sort of premium element of even if we're not going 00:15:59.538 --> 00:16:04.418 to gate everything, we are going to gate certain things and try and drive you toward them. 00:16:04.418 --> 00:16:07.358 So I just think this is something we're going to be seeing a lot more of. 00:16:07.358 --> 00:16:10.338 Yeah the verge one for me was fascinating because 00:16:10.338 --> 00:16:13.138 i've heard nila patel the editor there took so many 00:16:13.138 --> 00:16:15.998 times about you know he's love of the kind of 00:16:15.998 --> 00:16:19.858 blogging style of no paywall 00:16:19.858 --> 00:16:22.718 uh the articles are up go and 00:16:22.718 --> 00:16:25.878 watch them on their own website go read them on their own website etc 00:16:25.878 --> 00:16:29.178 etc and now we have a seven dollars a month uh fifty 00:16:29.178 --> 00:16:31.898 dollars a year paywall for the verge i'm not 00:16:31.898 --> 00:16:36.158 sure how much is behind the paywall at the moment i 00:16:36.158 --> 00:16:40.338 think they're going with i think the sort of standard vox strategy. 00:16:40.338 --> 00:16:43.058 Of more carrot than stick i think 00:16:43.058 --> 00:16:46.498 it's like there's perks there's extra content there's 00:16:46.498 --> 00:16:49.098 exclusive but i think the majority of it's still in front 00:16:49.098 --> 00:16:52.138 of the paywall but watch that switch over the 00:16:52.138 --> 00:16:54.838 next year so i would imagine i think that this is part of 00:16:54.838 --> 00:16:57.738 a larger trend that i you know am kind 00:16:57.738 --> 00:17:00.578 of constantly watching the skies for which is 00:17:00.578 --> 00:17:03.778 the the gulf between consumer media and 00:17:03.778 --> 00:17:06.858 sort of business to business media i increasingly think 00:17:06.858 --> 00:17:11.078 that unless you're offering information to people that actively helps them make 00:17:11.078 --> 00:17:15.238 more money or do better at their job or you know has this very tangible benefit. 00:17:15.238 --> 00:17:20.638 It's hard to get people to pay for that um and so where does that leave consumer 00:17:20.638 --> 00:17:25.138 media like i i see with the verge them having this paywall So. 00:17:26.300 --> 00:17:29.040 Certainly a likely prospect because they have a really 00:17:29.040 --> 00:17:31.960 loyal audience but does that change the kind of coverage that 00:17:31.960 --> 00:17:35.860 they have to do because if i'm only paying for one tech publication 00:17:35.860 --> 00:17:39.100 subscription i might be paying for the 00:17:39.100 --> 00:17:41.840 information or whatever there's someone that's like i mean that's quite 00:17:41.840 --> 00:17:46.480 that i need that's very different price points yeah 00:17:46.480 --> 00:17:51.440 and i love information but yeah it's hard to say i'm just i mean and i'm just 00:17:51.440 --> 00:17:56.020 representing myself here but i'm only gonna i'm gonna be very picky about the 00:17:56.020 --> 00:17:58.960 the subscriptions that i choose to pay for and if i'm paying for them i kind 00:17:58.960 --> 00:18:03.960 of need it to be either the most compelling entertainment of all time or. 00:18:04.580 --> 00:18:08.220 Tangibly beneficial to my job basically you 00:18:08.220 --> 00:18:11.180 either have to really care about the person or really need the information 00:18:11.180 --> 00:18:14.060 i think and linked to 00:18:14.060 --> 00:18:17.420 some of that is the reason why people want paywalls i 00:18:17.420 --> 00:18:20.160 think is as you 00:18:20.160 --> 00:18:23.920 say search broke you know there's so 00:18:23.920 --> 00:18:27.100 much rubbish now when you put stuff into search 00:18:27.100 --> 00:18:30.280 no one quite knows how the google algorithm 00:18:30.280 --> 00:18:33.720 works and the people that do know how 00:18:33.720 --> 00:18:37.940 it works a lot of them are producing rubbish not you 00:18:37.940 --> 00:18:41.940 know not useful content um so 00:18:41.940 --> 00:18:45.320 it's the battle with google is huge and 00:18:45.320 --> 00:18:48.320 i would connect to that the social media 00:18:48.320 --> 00:18:52.160 companies now don't want to help drive traffic either threads actively 00:18:52.160 --> 00:18:59.320 uh opposes it x actively opposes it uh blue sky have been a bit more open to 00:18:59.320 --> 00:19:04.060 driving traffic and links but you know anything owned by meta anything owned 00:19:04.060 --> 00:19:10.320 by elon musk they don't want you to post links yeah very much so i mean and 00:19:10.320 --> 00:19:11.740 i have this other the trend down here, 00:19:11.880 --> 00:19:14.740 which is a little bit more opaque, I write this kind of focus on utilities, 00:19:14.780 --> 00:19:16.940 life engagement. I think these are all related. 00:19:17.160 --> 00:19:19.980 It basically is, if you talk to publishers, they'll say. 00:19:21.313 --> 00:19:26.293 We're getting less traffic. And as a result, the people that we do get, 00:19:26.473 --> 00:19:32.433 we need to make sure that they're consuming more of our content or spending more time on our site. 00:19:32.593 --> 00:19:35.593 So how do we do that? Basically, as the cost of acquiring customers goes up, 00:19:35.733 --> 00:19:40.633 you need to put a greater emphasis on really bringing revenue out of them while 00:19:40.633 --> 00:19:45.493 they're on their site, which in the long term doesn't mean stuff a page full of ads. 00:19:45.613 --> 00:19:48.153 It means try and keep them on the site, try to keep them coming back, 00:19:48.293 --> 00:19:49.313 try to really win them over. 00:19:50.153 --> 00:19:53.653 So I think that's why you're seeing a lot of places develop new web products 00:19:53.653 --> 00:19:55.533 or even apps that are specifically like, 00:19:55.653 --> 00:20:02.013 if we're going to have 10% of our audience, you know, drive 80% of our revenue, 00:20:02.013 --> 00:20:07.673 we need to give those people a lot of different things to do on our site in 00:20:07.673 --> 00:20:10.413 a lot of different ways to pay us, etc. 00:20:10.893 --> 00:20:17.033 Games, cooking. Yeah, yeah. But I think that the decline in Google is striking 00:20:17.033 --> 00:20:19.293 and multifaceted, honestly. 00:20:19.593 --> 00:20:24.553 I kind of split up sort of search breaking and traffic disappearing in slightly different things. 00:20:25.333 --> 00:20:29.533 Google sending less traffic to publishers is certainly the case. 00:20:29.533 --> 00:20:31.953 But this has been happening over the course of a decade. 00:20:32.213 --> 00:20:35.673 You talk to anyone who's in the search industry, they'll tell you the amount 00:20:35.673 --> 00:20:39.153 of real estate that Google gives to publishers has shrunk every year. 00:20:39.613 --> 00:20:44.293 And now we've got those summaries, those summaries at the top that basically 00:20:44.293 --> 00:20:46.593 are there so you don't even have to click. 00:20:47.513 --> 00:20:50.313 Yeah so i think that hopefully people have been 00:20:50.313 --> 00:20:53.433 preparing for that because it's been a long-term trend 00:20:53.433 --> 00:20:56.433 but when when i refer to this sort of breaking of 00:20:56.433 --> 00:20:59.373 search i'm specifically talking about a phenomenon 00:20:59.373 --> 00:21:02.013 that i've been doing a lot of reporting on over the last several months which are 00:21:02.013 --> 00:21:07.053 these algorithm updates that are really harming the affiliate industry or i 00:21:07.053 --> 00:21:10.533 should say really having a big impact on the affiliate industry which had been 00:21:10.533 --> 00:21:15.013 a massive source of revenue for a lot of publishers um and i was speaking with 00:21:15.013 --> 00:21:19.873 a number of them last night and And if you talk to anyone in the media space 00:21:19.873 --> 00:21:21.553 who has a significant affiliate business, 00:21:21.733 --> 00:21:25.413 they'll tell you that Google's changes to the algorithm over the last six to 00:21:25.413 --> 00:21:31.353 12 months have really, really challenged that as a viable line of business. 00:21:31.493 --> 00:21:34.673 So you have not just traffic declining, but you also have affiliate marketing 00:21:34.673 --> 00:21:36.473 declining and all of this lending 00:21:36.473 --> 00:21:39.713 publishers to say, we need to have the relationship with the audience. 00:21:39.853 --> 00:21:43.193 They need to come to our site directly or our app, stay there for a long time. 00:21:43.293 --> 00:21:47.873 We need to act like Google doesn't exist. um explain the issue with the affiliate 00:21:47.873 --> 00:21:52.233 yeah i mean she says with affiliate links on her site. 00:21:52.920 --> 00:21:56.500 You can you can go down a rabbit hole with this um there 00:21:56.500 --> 00:21:59.800 in a nutshell there's been a big update 00:21:59.800 --> 00:22:03.120 called the site reputation abuse update um 00:22:03.120 --> 00:22:09.080 which has really upended a lot of the affiliate space which a lot of publishers 00:22:09.080 --> 00:22:12.900 have been i mean there's kind of two camps there the publishers who were growth 00:22:12.900 --> 00:22:16.740 hacking and gaming the system and getting penalized and maybe you could argue 00:22:16.740 --> 00:22:21.240 that that's a just and prudent decision from Google. 00:22:21.500 --> 00:22:26.120 What you also have are a lot of publishers saying we got caught in the net and 00:22:26.120 --> 00:22:27.720 we're not doing anything wrong. 00:22:28.140 --> 00:22:34.560 And yet we've been delisted or received manual penalties and had their traffic 00:22:34.560 --> 00:22:39.260 decline and are kind of stuck in this limbo of having to appeal to Google, 00:22:39.480 --> 00:22:44.580 wait, you've penalized us incorrectly and kind of getting stuck in this sort 00:22:44.580 --> 00:22:48.040 of Kafka-esque situation where they're trying to figure out what they did wrong, 00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:49.380 but Google won't tell them. 00:22:50.220 --> 00:22:51.780 And they can't Google it. 00:22:53.580 --> 00:22:58.120 It's crazy. I've had a lot of heated conversations with a lot of executives 00:22:58.120 --> 00:23:02.440 who've gotten incredibly frustrated with Google this last year. 00:23:02.480 --> 00:23:06.340 And a lot of people are saying, you know, this is Google behaving like a late 00:23:06.340 --> 00:23:13.080 stage monopoly, just sort of knowing that the guillotine is coming and acting 00:23:13.080 --> 00:23:15.920 out wildly while they still can kind of thing. 00:23:16.020 --> 00:23:22.940 I mean, the level of unaccountability and lack of transparency and sort of opportunism 00:23:22.940 --> 00:23:25.540 that I think Google's been exhibiting. 00:23:28.420 --> 00:23:34.900 As it relates to its search business is pretty astounding. Wow. 00:23:35.600 --> 00:23:40.960 And you think the last 12 months in particular have been a serious demonstration of that? 00:23:47.320 --> 00:23:50.000 Yeah i do um i think that you 00:23:50.000 --> 00:23:53.220 have a lot of criticism on both sides of the aisle but from smaller publishers 00:23:53.220 --> 00:23:56.380 and bigger publishers it doesn't really seem like any content creator feels 00:23:56.380 --> 00:23:59.280 like google is operating with 00:23:59.280 --> 00:24:02.240 their best interest in mind and it feels more of uh rather 00:24:02.240 --> 00:24:05.000 than prioritizing the user or prioritizing the 00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:07.980 content creator it's it's really about trying to 00:24:07.980 --> 00:24:12.400 uh get a little bit more profit out of every cert and 00:24:12.400 --> 00:24:15.280 i guess it's not you know google is a business it's 00:24:15.280 --> 00:24:19.600 going to defend its interest but there's also this idea yeah defend you know 00:24:19.600 --> 00:24:23.040 looking after the user you know it's not for google to prop up the news industry 00:24:23.040 --> 00:24:29.840 but if people are going on to google and just getting rubbish back ultimately 00:24:29.840 --> 00:24:32.900 there's a point where people will stop using it or not. 00:24:36.653 --> 00:24:39.393 Absolutely right and this is all happening set against the 00:24:39.393 --> 00:24:42.413 backdrop of a this you know anti 00:24:42.413 --> 00:24:45.733 monopoly scrutiny that it's facing in the us potentially 00:24:45.733 --> 00:24:49.273 having to divest chrome but then more importantly facing legitimate 00:24:49.273 --> 00:24:53.493 competition from places like open ai and perplexity that you and i were talking 00:24:53.493 --> 00:24:58.853 about so google is sort of making its product unbearably bad at a moment in 00:24:58.853 --> 00:25:02.673 time in which for the first time in a long time there are legitimate viable 00:25:02.673 --> 00:25:07.013 alternatives so uh The timing could not be worse, I think, 00:25:07.093 --> 00:25:11.573 for Google to be really souring its reputation with its key constituents. 00:25:12.093 --> 00:25:17.793 Yeah, you and I off air were talking about using OpenAI as a search tool. 00:25:17.893 --> 00:25:23.793 And I said I was kind of nervous of doing so just in case you get bad information 00:25:23.793 --> 00:25:26.933 back because, you know, we still don't quite know how reliable it is. 00:25:26.993 --> 00:25:32.753 And we know we get hallucinations and stuff on OpenAI, which brings us nicely, 00:25:32.973 --> 00:25:36.593 almost like we planned this. to the big theme of the year for me, which is AI. 00:25:37.453 --> 00:25:40.053 Everyone has talked about it endlessly. 00:25:40.913 --> 00:25:44.633 I try and always push back and say, ultimately, people will want stuff from 00:25:44.633 --> 00:25:47.193 humans. There'll be really useful AI tools. 00:25:47.413 --> 00:25:52.213 But in terms of our industry, people will want stuff from people that they know 00:25:52.213 --> 00:25:55.973 and like and publications that they know and like. 00:25:56.873 --> 00:26:01.713 Am I being too optimistic? Has this year changed your view of AI in the media industry? 00:26:05.093 --> 00:26:09.293 Um, I think that you're definitely right in saying that there has still been 00:26:09.293 --> 00:26:10.993 a lot of conversation around it. 00:26:11.153 --> 00:26:16.933 I think that there are still a limited number of really practical use cases for the average person. 00:26:17.133 --> 00:26:22.113 So I don't know that it's upended the industry in the way that we think that it will. 00:26:22.113 --> 00:26:27.713 I think you and I were talking about I've really begun to use it as a tool in 00:26:27.713 --> 00:26:31.393 many capacities, but I still feel like the end of the day, 00:26:31.513 --> 00:26:35.393 like what I bring to the table that AI can't replace is the fact that I'm going 00:26:35.393 --> 00:26:39.593 out and reporting and speaking with people and uncovering information that is not on the Internet. 00:26:40.013 --> 00:26:44.213 You know what I mean? So so long as that's a value that you're bringing, 00:26:44.433 --> 00:26:51.493 I don't see how AI is able to, you know, determine what's going on beyond what's on the Internet. 00:26:52.113 --> 00:26:55.973 Um this is i do think that it's become pretty valuable though in terms of, 00:26:56.673 --> 00:27:01.113 content generation honestly and and and other applications but i don't think 00:27:01.113 --> 00:27:05.713 that it replaces reporting at least so it could just quickly content generation 00:27:05.713 --> 00:27:08.833 what do you mean how it's become useful what have you seen over the last year 00:27:08.833 --> 00:27:09.833 that makes you think that. 00:27:12.645 --> 00:27:16.605 I mean, we use it for headlines. We use it for basic copywriting. 00:27:17.445 --> 00:27:21.305 It's a helpful sort of first draft on a lot of things. 00:27:21.325 --> 00:27:26.965 I know a lot of people who use AI summarization tools pretty frequently. 00:27:27.225 --> 00:27:32.865 And again, you and I were kind of talking about a colleague I know who uses 00:27:32.865 --> 00:27:34.485 the OpenAI chat function and 00:27:34.485 --> 00:27:39.405 really kind of goes through the ideation and spitballing process with AI. 00:27:39.405 --> 00:27:42.565 So, again, these are all ways where you're using it as a tool, 00:27:42.565 --> 00:27:47.065 but it's not it's not doing your job. It's allowing you to do your job better. 00:27:47.965 --> 00:27:48.945 Right. Right. Right. Right. 00:27:50.305 --> 00:27:54.185 Yeah. For me, the thing people have totally forgotten is everyone's got excited 00:27:54.185 --> 00:27:58.045 about AI this year is that AI can only give you back. 00:27:58.245 --> 00:28:02.285 Certainly at this moment, I accept we may go beyond this. 00:28:02.285 --> 00:28:07.985 But at the moment, the tools that are widely available, AI can only give back 00:28:07.985 --> 00:28:12.985 information based on information that it has already had, i.e. 00:28:12.985 --> 00:28:14.385 Stuff that we've already produced. 00:28:14.705 --> 00:28:18.945 So if the example you use, you Google some details about a company, 00:28:19.365 --> 00:28:23.145 that's one thing, and you put the same question into OpenAI, 00:28:23.465 --> 00:28:28.745 OpenAI will still give you back the information that exists. 00:28:29.005 --> 00:28:31.945 Someone's had to put it somewhere first. is not as 00:28:31.945 --> 00:28:35.265 you to your point it can't do the reporting and the sleuthing now 00:28:35.265 --> 00:28:40.365 maybe in other industries you know the medical industry for example um there's 00:28:40.365 --> 00:28:43.185 going to be all sorts of other ways it can generate information and go through 00:28:43.185 --> 00:28:47.585 data points and so on but in terms of what you and i spend our days thinking 00:28:47.585 --> 00:28:52.645 about media ultimately at the moment it's still only giving back what someone 00:28:52.645 --> 00:28:54.045 else has put in at a certain point. 00:28:55.613 --> 00:29:00.833 Yeah, absolutely true. I think one additional element, like in terms of the 00:29:00.833 --> 00:29:05.173 conversation around AI that really reached a fever pitch this year is the AI 00:29:05.173 --> 00:29:09.973 partnerships and the publishers that have signed deals with them and who has done that. 00:29:10.113 --> 00:29:14.033 And more notably, who hasn't done that, which is the vast majority of companies. 00:29:15.233 --> 00:29:17.773 How do you value your content? How do you value your archive? 00:29:18.033 --> 00:29:21.433 How do you value forward facing use cases? 00:29:22.093 --> 00:29:24.493 I think those are all really interesting conversations. Of course, 00:29:24.593 --> 00:29:25.273 you have the New York Times. 00:29:25.433 --> 00:29:29.933 Their lawsuit is, I think, groundbreaking in many ways and certainly another 00:29:29.933 --> 00:29:32.333 interesting factor in the mix. 00:29:32.513 --> 00:29:37.013 But to your point, if you pull this thread long enough, you end up with the 00:29:37.013 --> 00:29:42.453 conversation of ultimately, people are still creating content that these machines 00:29:42.453 --> 00:29:45.593 ingest and then spit out. 00:29:45.753 --> 00:29:50.453 And so there needs to be a sustainable way to finance the production of that content. 00:29:51.393 --> 00:29:57.053 And so until there's a great answer for that, this is basically an unsustainable model. 00:29:57.353 --> 00:30:00.413 And even these partnerships, we've gotten some numbers on them. 00:30:00.473 --> 00:30:06.133 I reported on the Dot Dash Meredith figures, $16 million a year. 00:30:06.273 --> 00:30:10.233 I mean, that's one part of a payment and there's a second part, 00:30:10.273 --> 00:30:11.433 so it'll be a bigger number. 00:30:11.693 --> 00:30:15.893 But $16 million a year, I mean, that's chump change to Dot Dash. 00:30:16.393 --> 00:30:17.713 That's hardly anything. 00:30:18.553 --> 00:30:22.033 Um so you kind of have this situation where you're like it really feels like 00:30:22.033 --> 00:30:23.033 they're selling the golden goose 00:30:23.033 --> 00:30:27.913 for very little um but you know i think everybody's having to do their own. 00:30:28.933 --> 00:30:34.613 Calculus and uh i think money now is better than maybe maybe money later i think 00:30:34.613 --> 00:30:40.113 that's the extent of the calculus or maybe no money later yeah yeah yeah exactly 00:30:40.113 --> 00:30:44.013 mark it's been such a pleasure to have you back on the show thank you for all 00:30:44.013 --> 00:30:46.353 the times you've jumped on during the course of this year. 00:30:47.133 --> 00:30:50.273 You don't get away with it. You will be back next year. I'm not asking. 00:30:50.393 --> 00:30:53.473 I'm telling you. Where can people keep up with all your great work? 00:30:54.513 --> 00:31:02.373 Yeah, just adweek.com and or increasingly LinkedIn and X a little bit still, unfortunately. 00:31:03.833 --> 00:31:07.993 I'm at Charlotte A. Henry across social media. If you're listening, 00:31:08.093 --> 00:31:14.333 I hope you know that you can go to the edition.net for all my stories, newsletters, and so on. 00:31:15.213 --> 00:31:20.833 And I hope you're a paid subscriber. It's a mere £50 for a year, £5 a month. 00:31:21.493 --> 00:31:26.213 It's, you know, frankly, it's a bargain. And it makes a lot of difference in 00:31:26.213 --> 00:31:29.073 supporting the work I do. There's the guilt paywall mark. There you go. 00:31:30.453 --> 00:31:35.213 So thank you for supporting the edition over the course of 2024. 00:31:36.293 --> 00:31:37.553 And I'll see you all next year. 00:31:38.000 --> 00:31:46.950 Music.