How industry incentives, trading and measurement shape media quality and why it matters

Speaker 0 · 0:00

Hello. Welcome to the Media Unfiltered podcast. We're back after a spell on the sidelines. And today, we have a fabulous guest, mister Erez Levin. He's a great speaker and writer about the ad industry, particularly around quality media. The challenge today, if you like, in a in a world of unlimited impressions and the dominance from three particular platforms who like to mark their own homework, is knowing what you're buying and knowing what quality is and understanding why that matters. Today, or rather together with SIM, Erez just wrote a huge paper on this particular topic, so we're gonna discuss that. And we've also got the sharp witted Ian Whittaker back in the hot seat, which is great to have. So hello, fellas. Welcome to the Unfiltered podcast. It's nice to have you. It's nice to see you guys. Ian, let's just start quickly because we've been off air for a little bit about the, the advertising market. You know, we've got Cannes coming up. Everyone's super excited. As you can see, there's still huge growth in in ad spend, much to my surprise. How's the advertising market and the stock market sort of looking from your perspective, and is there anything that's occurred in the last couple of weeks that's worth discussing?

Speaker 1 · 1:13

Being look, if you look at corporate earnings, corporate earnings still remain strong. So you're looking at over 85% of companies on the S and P 500. That's the main US stock index. So the of the biggest shares, 85% plus of companies have beaten their earnings estimates. The blended earnings growth is, I think, year on year, pushing nearly 30% for q one. So, essentially, what you're looking at is that's probably the strongest quarter in around five years. That's the sequential earnings sort of growth. So, look, I think we can say that corporate America still continues to be very strong. Love that's obviously driven by the tech platforms in terms of both in terms of the share price performance and also as well the earnings growth as well, but it's also as well sort of across the whole range. Now what does that mean in terms of advertising? Well, it is corporate profitability that drives advertising. So for that segment of the market, which is essentially is large advertisers, what traditional advertisers see, the traditional agencies and and broadcasters and so on, then it's obviously good news. Yeah. If those companies earnings are holding up, then typically what will happen is that they are less likely to actually cut the marketing spend. So I think what we're seeing in the ad market at the moment, it is generally things remaining sort of pretty much as they were. You've got in the traditional market, the the bigger advertising market. You still got continued growth that's coming through. So you're probably looking at a figure my feeling would be at the moment, sort of probably around the mid single digit range, somewhere around there, you know, possibly possibly slightly lower than that, but still growing. Obviously, you've then got the SME market, which is really the bedrock for the tech platforms. And for that, you can just see it from the results from the platforms themselves. That continues to grow very strongly. And so what you have is this sort of two tier advertising market, larger companies, the traditional companies, sort of, they're doing okay, but really growth driven by the SME mark market. And again, doesn't really seem as though there's any signs that it's slowing down soon.

Speaker 0 · 3:17

It's interesting because I think that the stock market and this sort of slight optimism we have around the the economy is driven really by seven main companies, isn't it? And this AI growth, I just can't see with, the wars going on, the, cost of oil, inflation, that, consumer spending will continue. Is is that still going okay, Ian, like the consumer spending element? Because surely, that's gonna take a hit soon.

Speaker 1 · 3:46

Well, data data is really sort of mixed across the board. You look at the consumer confidence numbers in the state states, they're very weak. But then you've just seen the the latest timings data, and actually, sort of it looks quite positive in terms of number of positions, that are open and not necessarily in the sort of number of hires. So we've had this concern for years. You know, is the consumer sort of falling over? Are particularly lower income consumers feeling under pressure? Obviously, it has had an impact for some companies. You take PepsiCo, they had to reduce their prices by up to 15% across a range of products McDonald's has said. Also as well, the consumers pushing back against price increases. I think what what you have here though is that very much in terms of that spending, that spending does tend to be concentrated amongst higher income groups. So I think the way to look at it almost is there's not as it were a uniform message you can give across the board here. It could be, for example, that certain certain advertisers who are, let's say, more sort of, more exposed to those and more con discretionary income continues to do very well because people continue to spend. And that is a clear so that you can see that in the economic numbers and see in the the monetary numbers as well. It may be that that some sort of companies that are more weighted towards lower tier markets, sort of low in terms of of demographics, do suffer more. But, again, you're not really seeing that in the earnings numbers coming through. And, you know, I'd reiterate the point. We've had these fears now for around the past two, two and a half years. People were talking into 2024 that the recession didn't happen. Talking in '25, there'd be recession, didn't happen. Talking in '26, there'd be recession, didn't happen. Yeah. So interesting, though. I I I took

Speaker 0 · 5:31

I don't go to McDonald's very often. I took four kids there, and I was absolutely shocked at how much it cost me for four Big Mac meals. I was I was I'm in Canada, and I was I was not too far off sort of the $80.80 dollar mark, which I was absolutely shocked at. But I just I guess I don't shop there. And, you know, inflation on McDonald's hasn't hasn't been a big thing in this household. So looking at some interesting discussion points, quality. We're talking about quality all the time in this industry at the moment. And, Rez, you've you've just done this this huge report, which I've actually gone through the vast majority of it, not all of it. Sorry about that, but I did go through quite a lot of it. So I think I think an easy way to kick off is is why don't you explain what is policy from your perspective? Why does it matter? And, give us a bit of an overview of the feedback that you're having from this this this report that you've just put together. So maybe I'll start with even the first principle, like, why quality matters.

Speaker 2 · 6:25

The first thing we did, and we had a lot of input and feedback. Right? This is not a you know, this is many people coming together, and we wanted to get consensus. And so to start off, we sort of aligned to a vision. What's something that everyone could agree with, which is not easy to do in this industry in any sort of sizable working group? And what we picked was all all media, all impressions are not created equal, something that everyone could agree to. And that was almost like this first principle. And so how do we if we know that they're not all created equal, what is, sort of the dimensions? What are the factors, the variables that make some media worth more than others, and how do we assess that? And so I think quality becomes this really important answer to that equation. The other part to to answer for you and to elaborate. So quality, we have one sort of core framework at the beginning called we call it the quality trifecta. So marketing effectiveness is kind of three pillars. There's media quality, there is creative quality, and there's audience slash data quality. And all three of those are really important, critical. It's sort of their balance. It's the sort of quality levers across all of them. We sort of talk about the the winners and losers and and who's gonna sort of be able to offer value in this sort of quality era. But we particularly focused on media quality. And so when we're talking about defining media quality specifically, separately from creative quality and sort of audience quality, it's what are all of those dimensions, those variables, those characteristics of a single impression or sort of a group of media of impressions that are not tied to identity, that are separate from the specific audience, the the identifiable audiences, that make them more or less relatively valuable than another given their likelihood of driving an outcome or a set of outcome.

Speaker 0 · 8:08

Okay. So you've done that. And what what are you you you mentioned sort of environment and media. What what for you makes a quality impression? And and

Speaker 2 · 8:20

for you, what why does that matter? Actually, the the reason I really like the word quality and not premium is because it's not binary, and we talk about different attributes. And so I don't say what is quality. It's more of quality is this range. And so there is higher quality, and there's a medium quality and lower quality. And there's two categories that I think help determine what is quality. Broadly speaking, there is we call it attention in the industry. That's sort of what became prominent, but it's really talking about the prominence of the placement, the likelihood that somebody is going to see, notice, and remember an ad given, you know, the size, the how long it's on the screen, whether the sound is on for the video ad. And then there's also the context, the context of the user, the receptiveness. You talked about going to McDonald's. If you saw McDonald's ad, two hours before dinner time versus two hours after, you're at a different level of receptiveness to getting that message. And so the key point here is that you, as an advertiser, need to determine the relative value. One ad is higher quality. That doesn't mean the lower quality or the medium quality one isn't valuable, but you don't wanna pay the same amounts for those because one is likely to be more effective at driving the outcomes you care about. Yeah. I totally agree with that. But do you think that the one, do you think this is just a bit too late? Right? When you look at programmatic,

Speaker 0 · 9:36

display and what has happened to newspapers, we all agree that those quality environments online, when you're talking about display versus display within news brands, is way higher quality than thousands of long tails of websites. However, because of the incentives, because of the way that technology works and the way that our industry is set up around buying these ads, the quality of CPMs didn't come through. It was incredibly challenging for these brands. Like, they actually have way higher audiences than they ever had before. We can't monetize them. So is this is this just too late? Or or is are we you now looking at it going, well, let's try and get this right for video? Because the challenge of video as well, I mentioned at the beginning, unlimited impressions. You're coming up against AI slop or whatever you wanna call it, but it's not the same as premium programming within sort of regulated environments. But the challenge is on the CPM side of things. They're going down. Supply is going up, and the price is going down. So is this is this just a bit too late? Will this have any impact, do you think, on the industry? I think it's not too late, and I think it will have an impact.

Speaker 2 · 10:44

So supply seems like it's going up, but there's a very finite amount. You can call it quality. You can call it attention. You can call it time. How much time are people actually spending, let's just stick to video, watching actual video content and getting ads served before, during, and after. That is a very finite number. Maybe it's spreading from TVs to now CTV to digital platforms to, you know, social media, but there's still a finite amount. Maybe it goes up a little bit, but probably not. That is finite, and that is actually very scarce relative to the amount of demand. As soon as buyers start to value that quality because right now, they're paying the same. This is what I saw, right, over a decade plus in the industry watching this sort of race to the bottom. The amount of spend in the billions that is going to small little muted video ads that play in the bottom corner because they lie. They call themselves in stream ads. The buyers don't check. And so they're buying that. They're paying the same price as a full screen sound on ad. And so they think that the supply is infinite, but it's not. And so as soon as buyers just start to look at these basic assessments of qualitative dimensions, the size of the ad, the time of the day, they say, I'm not saying don't buy those lower quality ads. Pay less for them and don't spend too much of your budget.

Speaker 0 · 12:00

Okay. So when you, look at clients and you speak to clients about this, do do they care? Because because I've I've run so many sessions on these, and and you go around in circles. Right? They're they're like, well, you know, they'll look on TikTok and say, this, particular doctor is valuable. I really wanna know what he knows about diabetes or something like that. And I would say to them, but, yeah, you can't buy that doctor. You could just buy shitloads of audience from that platform, but you don't know where you're buying buying it. You don't know what you're buying or what against. Therefore, it's not quality. And then they go, well, this might be cheap, but it's still driving an outcome. So I'm based on the outcome. So you go around this circle of what's quality. Is it quality if it drives an outcome? Is it quality if it's in a quality environment? So from your side,

Speaker 2 · 12:45

do clients really give a shit? They all say they care. How many of them are actually willing to take the actions and then also That's the key. To their finance teams that still have an expectation of an average CPM. Most of the low lower quality stuff that's being bought, it's not because they wanna buy it. It's because it's easy to do. It's easy to fill their budgets, and it helps lower their average CPMs. And so we have to sort of push back and say, cost is not what matters. Value is what matters. We should be able to we should be willing to. We must pay more. But we also have to assess the quality and the impact of that media. And this is core in the paper and something I care a lot about, and I know you guys do too, like the the value of brand. Right? We can't assess media only on what is measurable in the short term. Most advertising works in two time horizons. The short term for people that are in market and the long term for people just to build. They're not in market today, but you're gonna keep reminding them of messages. And one day when they enter the market, like, for a car or anything else, they're gonna be more likely to remember your brand or be willing more more likely to pay a premium for it. That is how advertising most of advertising works. That's what we need to get back to. To go back to your question in terms of do they care? Are they gonna do anything about it? There are already buyers that care and do something about it. They don't talk about it too much because this is a strategic advantage for them. The market is really inefficient. They're taking advantage of it. The more buyers realize just how bad things have gotten, just how it is now pointing out very obviously where they're wasting their money. They're spending 30% of their budget overnight on CTV and paying the same CPMs as they pay at prime time in the middle of the day. Once you make those things obvious, the ones that are the first movers and decide to sort of, you know, clean up and stop overpaying for or overspending on lower quality media, they get an advantage. Anyone else that doesn't do the same is gonna fall behind.

Speaker 1 · 14:39

You pointed out that in terms of marketing teams, they get pushback from finance Because finance says, why don't you put marketing towards lower CPMs? I guess, one question from that would be, who actually is educated the finance team on this whole idea of actually going for lower CPMs? That's not necessarily something that finance would would have picked up themselves. I mean, my feeling is that, essentially, marketing teams have lent too much on the concept of CPMs for quite a while. That, therefore, is fed into the financial ecosystem into their finance teams. And now what's happening is, of course, when Martin tries to go back, that the finance teams are using the very metric that marketing actually educated those finance teams on and using it against their case.

Speaker 2 · 15:24

Yeah. So I don't like to, point fingers. I think this is these are systemic problems. We've sort of created this accountability sync across the industry and even within sort of these marketers. It is ultimately if I look at it, it's the marketers that should have probably been more courageous from the beginning to stand up, to explain, to even if the CFO or the CEO or their board are saying, no. We need things cheaper. We need to see results in the short term. They needed to step up and say, we can do that, but you also need to account for the brand value. We can't over sacrifice the long term in order to hit some short term metrics. We gotta balance both. And I think that's something that we've sort of marketing has trained, you know, the the finance teams to expect. We can just get more volume, get it for cheaper, and you can measure it in a certain way. And so that's something that we need to sort of retrain, the the market in a way to start to value that long term

Speaker 1 · 16:20

in sort of parallel with the short term impact. I think the the the sort of the the point that we'd make is that it almost feels as though from the outside, the more that the the more the perception or almost as it were that marked, sort of, marketing could be a science that could be quantified, then, actually, this feels like an inverse correlation with, actually, sort of it it's bargaining power with the boardroom. And, you know, the question therefore becomes is that causation a correlation?

Speaker 2 · 16:49

Now, you know, that that's more the question for debate, but I think it's sort of it was one topic that's come to mind when you were talking about the finance teams and their CPM rates. Yeah. I I always like the instead of the art and science analogy, I like Karl Popper's. He talked about clock sciences and cloud sciences. And so a clock, a grandfather clock, is very predictable and rational. You know exactly when it's gonna turn. And then a cloud is much more irrational. It's unpredictable. There's too many variables. We've treated marketing like a clock science when it's actually much more of a cloud science. And so I think that's just something that we have to put in there and look at it in probabilities and just accept. I think that is the ultimate quality control that we had in the pre digital era, that everything we just knew from the beginning, it was probabilistic. We measured everything over the short and long term impact and knew that we couldn't know precisely the impact of the marketing. And in this sort of digital era, the precision era, we sort of pretended and thought that it was right. And and you guys might be familiar. I always use that George Box's quote, All models are wrong. Some are useful. We pretended like the models were right, like perfectly right, and they weren't. And so we sort of followed the attribution models assuming that they were all perfectly accurate, and that led led to that race to the bottom. So the return now to more probabilistic measurements, moving away from multi touch attribution more towards econometrics and experimentation, I think, will prove, the value of the quality of the media. And that's not to say low quality media doesn't work. Cheap reach is fine. It just has to be cheap enough.

Speaker 0 · 18:23

So you you mentioned some good points then. You say that you don't like to point fingers. Well, I do like to point fingers, and I think that the digital industry in Silicon Valley has convinced, as you said, that this this this whole deterministic nonsense that actually advertising is a strong force, and you couldn't create outcomes with it. It's it's total nonsense. You actually just load the die in your favor. To think that we're gonna move back to that, I think, is a bit pie in the sky. But I I I share your, optimism in order to go back to that model. Actually, the way it works and the dirty little secret that we have in media is that the, impact of media on on campaign success is around 10 to 15%. K? Soon, clients are gonna realize that, and it's falling. It's dropping because of this drive for cheap and the way that we measure it, and then the incentives, and then we have these ridiculous that rate media against each other, which I which I fundamentally disagree with. The problem is because of the low impact of media, price is so important to the impact. And that's why the finance guys like it so much because it looks like it's driving a huge amount of of or carrying a lot of weight. And the lower the price, the better the ROI. That's the fundamental issue with this problem. So how do you how do you get around that, Haris? How do you think we we move beyond

Speaker 2 · 19:44

that major problem in our industry? It's moving beyond the averages. Right? So it's understanding that there's a unique value, and it it can be on an impression by impression basis, but it can you can cut it in different ways, even looking at a time of day. I'll give it a different sort of lens on this because you keep talking about sort of quality media, and I really try to avoid that quality and premium for that same reason, the sort of binary. And one of the lenses that I look at is something like YouTube, and I look at every single channel. Every channel has some sort of range. It has some higher quality and has some lower quality. And in you only see the average. And so you've got online video, and you've got some really premium large sound on, and then you've got the low sort of recipe site muted videos. And that's all counts as online video, and it all labels itself as an in stream. And so it looks like it's fine. You get an average CPM. YouTube is another example. And we've had this fight now for a while. Is YouTube premium? Is it quality? And look at this sort of like, it's not a monotonous. None of these channels are at the top of YouTube, this YouTube select, whatever they call that, the top 5% by any I I'll call it an objective measure. Any advertiser, any consumer, both of them are important, would look at that top 5% of YouTube content and say that is the highest quality of media there is, as high quality as the highest quality TV, that top 5%. But that's the top 5%. That is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of YouTube is not that. Some of it is, call it medium quality, and some a lot of it is much lower quality. It's people watching music videos or not watching music videos or playing in the background. It's kids' content. This is where we have to move away from these averages for each channel. We have to look at just a few qualitative dimensions. You don't have to have all of them. It can be the sort of bottomless pit of quality dimensions. We can just look at if you look at the time of day, look at the type of, channel or show, look at the geo. Right? Why are we spending, distributing, or spend evenly? I've I've worked with advertisers who just said, oh, you know what? I work better. Like, my product sells better in certain markets. I have a higher market share there. And if I'm just trying to move product off shelf, you can just tweak the algorithm a little bit. There are ways to do this that are very effective. It's just moving away from this idea that pricing on media the same and especially at this average, which doesn't work for these, you know, real, heterogeneous channels.

Speaker 0 · 21:56

Okay. Quick yes, no question. Is the media that you're advertising in quality if it is transparent, if it is independently verified by audiences, by a third party, that you're getting what you're buying? If it if it isn't, is the opposite? Is it non quality to CSR? Not necessarily.

Speaker 2 · 22:16

Why? Because you can get high quality media that isn't transparent. Yeah. But if you don't know what you're buying, you don't know whether you're buying the quality of the shit. I'm not saying you should pay for it as if it's higher quality, but it can be. And so there's a balance between quality and and transparency, and we talk about that in the paper.

Speaker 0 · 22:31

Okay. So I just came from, actors event last week, which was in in Vienna. They they talked a lot about this. TV companies from their side, which I do agree with, they sell a quality product. Right? It's it's transparent. You know what you're buying. It's human verified, human vetted ads. There's no scam ads. As a result, it's trusted, it's regulated, etcetera. So the environment there is what I would consider to be quality. So what are those quality environments do about it? Because the issue that they've got is they've got a lot for like for unlike media coming in, so you're adding to supply. It's not the same quality, but it's adding to the supply of of video, which a lot of teams are planning around. But the that the other video is cheaper. It's easier to produce when it's online and it's unregulated. So it's having an impact on the the ability for the premium environments to charge a higher CPM, and it costs more to sell in these quality environments. So what do those environments do? What does TV companies do, particularly? What do broadcasters do as they offer a a quality environment, and how do they prove what they are offering is worth more? Yeah. So

Speaker 2 · 23:43

I hope this isn't a yes, no question. So I'll I'll dig in. So transparency, going back to the previous question, it's also not a binary. There are levels and degrees of transparency. And so the example here for TV companies that sell their media with full transparency into which shows you're running on and times and pods and things like that. If you are an advertiser and you're buying from a premium publisher, it's NBC, somebody with an a logo you know, but they're not giving you transparency into what show, it's not full transparency, but you know you're getting a higher quality product. Now don't pay the price as if it's the exact show you wish it was. Pay the lowest value for this sort of, like, okay, Disney or NBC or whatever that is. If they're willing to offer you show level transparency, then you're willing to pay more for certain impressions. That's how it works. This so your sort of next question here, the paper and the focus is primarily with buyers. Buyers are the ones they control everything. They control the purse strings. They're the ones that create the incentives here. And so my message is mostly to buyers for them to stop wasting their money overpaying for, overspending on low quality media. There is still a narrative for everyone else, including publishers with high quality media. And that's telling that story back to the market of which there is a small, not insignificant, but small and growing part of the market that understands the quality story. They understand that they shouldn't just be buying the cheapest thing that they can find. And so this is requires negotiation, requires pushback, requires communicating to your buyers, to the people you're negotiating with, explaining to them why yours your media is higher quality than what they're getting. You know, if they wanna go and say, no. I'm gonna buy my in stream in the open auction for 10. You know what? Check it. Check that it actually has the sound on. I think there's going to be more and more pressure on the buy side to validate that the quality of what they're getting, it doesn't mean it's not a perfect deterministic level of quality. But if you see that they're paying the same price for sound on versus sound off media, that they're spending forty, sixty, 80% of their video budgets on sound off supply, which can be very easily validated, there's going to be pressure, I think, increasingly on buyers to start to price media more accurately. Going back one other point to add on, the the why I'm optimistic that we're sort of heading into a better place, when cookies were announced to be going away, that sort of broke the the big delusion, the big illusion that we all lived under, that we could actually do deterministic, you know, attribution and targeting and measurement, for users across all their touch points. That fantasy is gone. We're still pretending that it exists, but it doesn't really live, anymore, and it won't. We're not going back to that place. And so use the cookies, identifiers, the IPs when you have them. Do some attribution. Understand that it's a model and it's not perfect. But more often than not, you're gonna have to put a premium on media quality signals as well and say, no. I know these things are higher attention. They're more likely to drive long term impacts for the people that are exposed to these ads.

Speaker 0 · 26:54

The the the reality is in in a lot of markets where you look at pricing, linear is sometimes priced at the same price point as YouTube. So, I mean, I'd I'd love to hear I'd love to be optimistic with you, but at the moment, prices are are are going in one direction, sadly. One thing they discussed at this event, just you cannot ask tell me whether you like this or not, they were talking about a quality index score, whatever that means for for media. I don't know how you do it or determine it or whether TV just does it themselves. But how do you feel about a quality index score? You're already shaking your head on that one. It can be useful,

Speaker 2 · 27:29

but mostly for smaller marketers or maybe if you had quality index scores for certain, you know, verticals plus objectives. Ultimately, it's very campaign specific. I look at time of day and I say, like, look how much money people are spending wasting. Right? Spending too much money overnight paying the same CPMs. That is for the vast majority of marketers' waste. They don't value they shouldn't value those impressions as much. They shouldn't spend so many of their so much of their budget there. But for certain advertisers, if you're Taco Bell and you're trying to reach the people that are hungry at 2AM, that could be a valuable sort of, even more valuable or equally valuable to that prime time slot. And so there's always gonna be some subjectivity, at least on the campaign level, not necessarily a personal subjectivity, but campaign level. And so I don't like the broad universal index. It can be helpful, but those things will be game too. And so we kind of you have to use that, but then also tweak it, customize it, make sure it's, it's what makes sense for your business. Okay. Well, to cap this off, you both you both get a question there. Ian, you can go second and, Erase, you can answer this first.

Speaker 0 · 28:29

A large part of the industry here is is, you know, you're looking at markets, looking at new media spend, 90% of which is going to three companies who who don't really care too much about this. So when so much inventory and spend, is going through three companies who really don't have much of an incentive to to provide a score, to provide greater transparency, or to be regulated, they resist all those attempts. Do you think this will really have any any impact? Or as you you you answer that first, and and, you know, what I mean by that is that the big boys need to get behind this to for it to be a real a real movement in my view. So does it make doing something like this a little bit futile?

Speaker 2 · 29:07

That's your question, Erez. And then, Ian, you can you can cap off after Erez has has answered that. The only thing that will change them is their incentives. So if there's enough dollars from marketers that are demanding to spend on higher quality media, they're valuing higher quality media, they will react accordingly like everyone else. And so, I don't expect any of the big three to go first. I don't expect everyone else in ad tech to go first, although what I'm encouraging is to sort of build that parallel path to build some of those quality solutions to sort of have more available for the growing, sort of portion of the market that does care about quality. If enough of them move forward, I do think it can sort of turn. It can change the incentives. You know, Google might be moving away from their advertising business, in which case, no, they're not gonna care that much. That's sort of like they're they've moved on and they're trying to take a different tack. But for those that do care about advertising dollars, at some point, it will be a large part. Maybe it won't be the majority for a while, because this is mostly for enterprise marketers. And if they're mostly catering to SMBs, it's a different story. But I think for anyone trying to service the enterprise marketer category, betting on quality is is a smart bet, at least to do that in parallel with the, like, outcome performance short term, sort of base solution. Ian, are you optimistic about quality

Speaker 0 · 30:30

and, the the dominance of the three platforms who tend to resist it?

Speaker 1 · 30:34

I'll answer I'll answer this a different way. Look, I think the advertising industry and indeed many of the the sort of you could argue the sort of traditional players with them, have for the past ten, fifteen years been sort of saying to the the message they've given to advertisers is very much about, you know, this is effectively an efficiency game. I go back to what we asked you before, I was, about the whole thing of of why is it that finance teams are are quoting back CPM rates. And so the issue that you've got here is that when you've got sort of an industry that has been so used to speaking in this sort of language and sort of portraying its products in this sort of what you could almost argue is a very sort of efficient way, and maybe it's been less focused on the trust element of it. You can't expect things to turn around overnight. Yeah. This is something which we are not talking as just happened, yeah, in the past year or so. It's been going on for twenty years, and it's been happening at all levels, agencies, sort of, as as well the traditional platforms. And as I sort of pointed out before, there's a whole industry that has grown up, sort of around making, sort of, advertising and marketing into a science. Well, you know, don't be surprised, therefore, if the people who are buying that product suddenly start to think that that's the way that it should be viewed. So I think a, you know, whether things change in the short term, and so I I sort of I think not. There certainly needs to be education sort of that goes on. That's for sure. There certainly needs to be sort of more done about the emphasis on on saying what exactly advertisers want for their media and, therefore, which media they should be going going from. But, yeah, in some ways, they look from the outside and say that the industry has been responsible for many of the problems it it's brought on itself. We could totally agree. And let's hope that the golden goose doesn't get screwed over by

Speaker 0 · 32:27

that we brought into this industry. You know, it's a great industry. Media is incredibly important. We probably over focus on it. As I mentioned, it's, 10 to 15% of campaign success, but we talk about, like, it's the the most important thing that, clients should be doing when it comes to comes to marketing. Well, Erez, I thank you for your time and doing that report. We'll be sharing that along with the this podcast. It's really interesting stuff, and it's it is a very interesting area. And, like I said at the beginning, in a world with a shit ton of impressions, judging quality seems to be a very important way to to to navigate through that. Ian, as always, thanks for your time. And, everyone, thank you for listening. Thanks, guys. Thank you.