I've actually never believed that content is king. "Content is king" is sort of the opposite of "The medium is the message," and I've always been a McLuhanian. I tend to think channel is king; channel, pipe, conduit. In this case, streaming. Cable used to be the prevailing mode of distribution; now streaming is. The king is dead; long live the king! Honestly, we're lousy with content. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a great new 10-part "murder show" (to quote a recent SNL bit." Channels need content to flow through them, hence the value of content creation. But if no one airs yur content, it's worthless.  

Make that offer--backed by the Saudis and Gulf  States-----$108 billion.

Adam, all is not lost. Paramount has just upped it's offer to $90 billion and that includes CNN and the other cable channels.

The new Cold War against Western communication...

The key point is not that this merger doesn't help clients but, rather that it causes them great harm. As I pointed out in my reply, will someone please explain what harm will be done to client ad campaigns. Why must everything an agency does be only for its clients' benefit?Why can't an agency chart its own course--rightly or wrongly?

Of course it's sad about the closing of agecies with famous names and histories as well as the loss of many jobs. And getting too big can cause management and coordination issues. But the same thing happens when marketers morph  into giagintic holding companies--why aren't we concerned about that?

I believe the Omnicom Massacre earlier this week was a travesty for our Marketing Communications industry.  It scrambled Agency brands & talent, and it sacrificed human capital (4000+ jobs impacting 4000+ families) in an industry where human capital, both client facing and support, is mission critical. There are no obvious client benefits nor stated strategic objectives, merely sacrificing Agency brands and people to satisfy the financial parameters of institutional shareholders and the self-serving enrichment the Interpublic top management.

Great news Ed! You're such an important and relentless voice in our industry, just imagine what you can do in DC!

OK, George and Dave, I'm going to organize a march on Washington DC to protest the bad stuff that's been going down. Not sure if I can get the big numbers you would like but I'll give it a go. "We" leave Monday at 6AM starting  on the Manhattan side of the George Washington Bridge. Wish "us" luck. 

I agree with Dave that Ed is opting out by throwing up his hands and hoping for the best. The Republicans that we have now started about 50 years ago to target local school boards, mayoral and state representative elections. Along came Fox to cheerlead their efforts and the end result is an Executive (and Cabinet) full of complete morons.  Get involved Ed. That is how change happens.

Maarten, yes, they will try to maximize profit--like any other company, including all of their clients. But that doesn't mean that their clients will be getting lousy creative or brand positioning from those shops within the corporate structure that handle this function. Nor does the holding company's "clout" in ad spend mean that individual clients will get screwed re targeting or reach or anything else in media buying. That depends on how well the client works with the media agency it hires to do media for it. If an untrained or unqualified media team is assigned to your account, client, demand a change--and you will get it. If you are not paying attention to media, that's also  on you, not just "them".

Sorry, Maarten, I think that calling this a "nightmnare" for marketers--aka this holding compny's clients--is a gross exagerration.

Add this trend to AI + Zero Search impacts, increased privacy regulation, user empowerment via adblockers, and paywall bypass. Publishers need to build relationships with their audience, have diversified revenue channels, and maximize ARPV (average revenue per visitor).

I stand by my comments, Dave. It's not passivity--it's reality. I hope that your efforts, whatever they are are fruitful, however, Good luck.

My point is Ed that we can't always wait for leaders, or parties to lead us, but need to make our own imitative. Clearly, there are real problems on the Demcratic side, but the NJ and Va governor races were big steps. We can't wait for rumors or health issues or whatever to play out. I am a believer in Branch Rickey's saying that "luck is the residue of design." Our luck will need to be made; we can't just wait for it.

Ed, I'm surprised by your passivity, or willful ignorance of what you can do. How about use your voice? Write letters? Support candidates? Work the polls?
Is it really so hard for you to parse who and what are right in the issue of Ukraine right now?

Dave, while I agree with most of what you say, I'm not sure I get exactly what "we" are supposed to do about it. It's unrealistic to think that advertisers--coming from all sorts of directions and interests ---are going to band together and support only those news sources that "get it right"--or "tell the truth", thereby forcing our news media to fight the battle for us. Who gets to decide what is the "truth?" Is my question.

I think that "we"--and the brave Ukranians--will have to wait it out until the voters finally decide that enough is enough. That may happen sooner than"we" think, indeed, it may happen in  some other way, sooner, if some of the rumors about revolts in the GOP, Trump's health, etc. are true. But who is going to lead  "us" our of this mess--the Democrat party which still hasn't figured out that the voters want solutions not just talking points about how bad the GOP is?

I totally agree Frank, and the loss of string, independent media at the local level is particularly problematic. They carried the reasoned voice with a local relevance into the home, day in and day out.

"Working in the media gives us responsibilities greater than the value of the advertisements bought and sold each day. ... We also have a big interest in free, independent democracies."

Thank you, Dave. It's a shame that the mainstrem media has lost its way as its billionaire ownership cabal is an accoplice to and willing partner of the class that has conveniently forgotten media's primary roles as society's watchdog, not as its lapdog for the powerful and wealthy. 

Headline should be People Inc., not USA Today. 

Joe, thank you for the shout out to PQ Media. One thing you didn't mention is the Brian's new ground-up version at Magna mirrored the PQ Model, which he and I discussed soon after he released his first report. If you decide to continue this exercise, we would glad to participate. You also should consider WARC, PWC, and possibly eMarketer (not sure if they cover all the industries) who continue to publish annual reports with advertising & marketing data.  

Well, I guess my concern here is whether the looming spectre of damages from lawsuits will influence the court to misapply law yet again. Lifelong Republican here, but I have lost faith in The Supreme Court. Derangement begets derangement, and it is not only trickling down from this administration, but overflowing like a waterfall after a record rainfall. 

These numbers can be manipulated with fake click and false accounts. I was removed by one of the above when I complained about Chinese click farms and a group of online hookers. These were not small attack.  I will further say X might be the best at clearing out fake accounts that create false views. For this reason, they should be rated higher in this poll. 

A few years ago, sponsoring a float cost the brands $75,000. Image the fees exceeded $100,000 in 2025.

Oh for the days when it was little more than marching bands from across the country, Popeye and Mickey Mouse balloons, and Santa. I much prefer Philly's Mummer's Day Parade, sponsored only by (this is true) IBEW Local Union 98, Live! Casino & Hotel, and McDonald's, and of course a few thousand drunken mummers who can't play the banjo and nobody cares.  Priceless!