If you ask AI to help solve business problems, truth is your knowledge and insights will be stored and shared with others like who who ask similar questions. So you are helping competitors when you do that. Hmmmm.   

+1 from most Aussies.

I wonder how many CEOs and Economies have been hurt this year by the tariffs enforced on them.

I wish the article said who is placing the media?

I loved this! Especially the part where you speak about Emotional Equity and that "People respond to the confidence of someone who refuses to compromise who they are." Bad Bunny has such a broad appeal that sums it up really well. Nice piece, well-done!

Steven, while it's true about young folks not trusting many sources--TV news, for example--it's also true that even if they trusted the TV newscasts most of them just aren't interested in what they are talking about. Except for unusual developments--like a major natural disaster, an attempt to kill the prsident, etc. the "news" is --to them--of little interest--hence it's boring. And they have little or no interest in devoting more than a few minutes per day to it--if that.

This has been evident in all of the many surveys in TV's long history--even when "the news" was  presented by Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and other real journalists who everybody, including the Gen Z's of olden times, trusted. Contrary to what some believe, this has not changed--even though today's Gen Z has all sorts of electronic devices to access content and "sources" like social media, podcasts, etc. to provide "news". Which is why, our Gen Zs are woefully uninformed about what's going on in the country, our political system, the war in Ukraine, chaos in The Middle East, our open boarders, etc. etc. It's not because of lack of news about these and many other subjects--trusted or not. It's simply that most Gen Z's don't care--they are much more self concerned as they prepare to face life's realities as adults. 

Which means that any attempt to  lure Gen Z viewers into anything approaching a steady TV "news" viewing habit is likely doomed from the outset, unless a comedic or parody approach is created to hook them---- like "Saturday Night Live" a long time ago--- and most of the focus is on celebrity doings put-ons and the like, not serious reporting. 

Yes, I know,I'm hopelessly out of date---today's Gen Zs are very different from those from "legacy" eras. So they are just itching to become loyal TV news viewers if only TV will clean up its act and give them news they can trust. I hope that someone--maybe Paramount--tries to prove I'm wrong. What's more, I hope that they succeed--but I wouldn't bet on that.

Love your take Steve since you at Magnify (and us at Globalvision) were at forefont when this was considered "radical." Their like campfire tales now : )

If I lived in Canada, I'd still buy Coke, Lays, Dr. Pepper etc. Not surprised the Canadian stores stocking American goods as it's hard to find Canadian goods and why does it cost more than American good Gord?

I do hope that trade talks resume with America & Canada and get a deal done as I liked the friendship America & Canada had for centuries. Pete Hoekstra was a US congressmen for many years, ran for governor in Michigan in 2010 lost in the primary on the GOP side, ran for US Senate in 2012 and lost in the general election I voted Pete as I didn't the US Senator who retired and decided not to run in 2024. Pete was also GOP Chairmen for MI as they impeached the chairwomen fear that they would lose in 2024 why theu hired Pete for the job.  

Can't this all be addressed with the First Annual Paramount Peace Prize?

@Leo much of the wording in government documentation regarding DEI is actually the same under Trump. You can pull government job requirements and see that while the word "equity" has been removed, diversity and inclusion remains in much of the documentation. 


The Biden administration never defined "equity" when pushed and as I stated, spending in this category was still increasing under Trump 45.  Trump didn't change in 4 years. The messages being pushed were very different while Biden was in office.  It's disingenuous to blame this decline  on Trump when these campaigns failed miserably under Biden's presidency and had nothing to do with Trump. 


Trying to blame Trump for failed campaigns when he wasn't in office makes no sense.  There is no reason to bring Biden or Trump into the conversation. Brands pushed too far and consumers said, "No. Stop." Sometimes the obvious is just that. 

Maybe the Ellisons can fold a renewal into the "deal" to block Netflix from taking over Warner Bros--a double victory for the tech bros.

Dan C., I have to disagree with your accessment that brand campaigns are decided a year out. In preparing this report, we interviewed many LGBTQ+ media operators and brands that have advertised and marketed in LGBTQ+ media. We were told in confidence by numerous opinion leader panel member that the Bud LIght boycott was devasting to the LGBTQ+ media. For example liquor brands stopped advertising in LGBTQ+ magazines cold turkey (pun intended) in 2023 after ranking as the 1st or 2nd highest brand category in magazines for decades. The reference to Trump's impact is specific to 2025, as our opinion leader panel members who are media operators lamented at the loss of brand spending compared with previous years, particularly during PRIDE Month, due to the administration's attacks on DEI policies.  

We queer people are just out here trying to live our lives. 

The LGBTQ+ market represents roughly $1.4 trillion in annual spending in the U.S. alone, according to the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

Brands engage with my community for the same reason they engage any large, loyal consumer base — because it’s smart business, not “pushing an agenda.”

@Joe, I didn't miss anything.  Given the headline, a reader would expect some kind of evidence pointing to a Trump policy that led to the decline during his first year in office.

You are certainly aware that major brands plan about a year out, so any declines would have been planned well before Trump took office, and likely been planned noting how poorly these campaigns had been received by the American public at large.

The article supports no "cause and effect" of Trump being in office. It's just odd you would use Trump in the headline when there is nothing in the article to present any kind of cause and effect of a Trump presidency.

In 2023 and 2024, Bud Light, Target, Nike, Adidas, Jaguar, and North Face all faced major backlash because of their idealogical social issue campaigns that were widely rejected.  All under the Biden presidency.  By no means am I stating these campaigns were motivated or implemented because of Biden policies, but at the same time, I fail to see how the decline has anything to do with Trump and everything to do with major brands suffering major consumer backlash over campaigns that were very unpopular.

MP has a history of publishing polls that state consumers want brands to be more vocal about polics and social issues, yet there is nothing in real world advertising where this has been attempted that supports the results of the polls.

Finally, based on your chart, you didn't mention that the spending increased during Trump's final year of his first presidency as well.  So Trump presidency does not = cause and effect and mentioning Trump in your headline only serves your personal bias and not an actual cause.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: You missed the part where the rate of growth decelerated 61% during Trump's first year of his second term.

So consumer backlash against brands unecessarily pushing social and political issues in 2023 is "under Trump" who didn't get into office until 2025?

Is it political sentiment or is it people just wanting to buy a product without some faceless brand pushing an agenda that consumers didn't ask for?  The Bud Light / Dylan Mulvaney fiasco started almost two years before Trump took office.  Jaguar's horrific transgender, rainbow, clusterf-ck campaign ran months before Trump got into office.

Needing to promote this as a decline due to Trump's second presidency without any factual basis or supporting evidence in the article, unfortunately, is what we come to expect of the MP EiC.

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!