Sir Martin Sorrell

Fascinating snapshot into exactly how 700m people a week are using ChatGPT - the most detailed study yet, from National Bureau of Economic Research (https://lnkd.in/ebx3s8Sr) 3 findings stood out for me: ⭐ "Practical guidance" is the no. 1 use case... ...accounting for nearly 1/3 of queries. This includes questions like “Which insurer should I pick?” or “What’s the best broadband provider for families?". People expect credible, experience-based answers. ⭐ ChatGPT is becoming the new search. The no. 2 use case is now "Seeking information" (up from 14% to 24% of ChatGPT queries over the last year). If consumers are no longer just Googling you, but asking ChatGPT — your reputation needs to be discoverable in that context. ⭐ Unlike web search, ChatGPT gives customised, context-sensitive answers. For many queries, if these answers aren't anchored in representative feedback, they become far less useful. As consumers increasingly ask ChatGPT about companies and products, having a trusted source of verified, public customer feedback will be critical. Too many large companies hide their customer feedback inside closed NPS tools, which LLMs can never access. By contrast, Trustpilot reviews provide the trust signals that make AI answers more credible and useful. Our ChatGPT citations are up 246% in just 3 months. If you'd like help with this feel free to ping me directly....

108

4 Comments

Must-read reporting from Ad Age, based on interviews with 22 ad execs, most of whom speak anonymously, plus welcome contributions from Prof. Dr. Sebastian Wolf. 👀 Among the highlights: - Several holding companies are considering reducing their investment in Cannes award entries next year - There are first-hand witnesses of agencies offering bribes, jurors being offered jobs and money - Agency chiefs, staff members, client-side managers are all under pressure to meet awards targets, explicit or de facto: “People are crying” - Agency CEOs usually sign off case study videos, according to insider - Cannes reps are in every jury room, but are “like temporary hires” who “don’t see the nuances”. – All Cannes results are currently independently audited and vetted by MediaSense. [My note: wtf have they been up to?] - One awards manager says they “don’t see the matter getting better with harsher punishment.” And it will only change when Cannes “requires real proof of results via footnotes”. [My note: is this seriously not the case already? And why hasn’t this cost-free, straightforward measure been mentioned in the new Cannes announcement about integrity standards?] - ‘We need an ethical revolution’ says one anonymous agency network chief. Yup. #cannesfactcheck #canneslions2025

135

33 Comments

Why Reading Differently Shapes Thinking Differently Haruki Murakami once wrote: “If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.” This insight is more than literary advice it’s a reminder of how innovation, leadership, and progress depend on stepping outside the boundaries of mainstream thinking. The Risk of Echo Chambers In an age of algorithms and trending lists, it’s easier than ever to consume the same content as everyone else. While this keeps us connected to popular ideas, it also risks creating echo chambers where diversity of thought is limited. Research shows that exposure to varied perspectives strengthens problem-solving and creativity (Harvard Business Review). When leaders or teams only draw from common sources, they may unconsciously limit their ability to innovate. The Value of Nontraditional Reading Reading beyond the mainstream opens new intellectual doors. For example: - History for Entrepreneurs – Understanding past disruptions provides context for future decisions. - Philosophy for Executives – Grappling with ethical questions sharpens judgment in uncertain times. - Fiction for Innovators – Studies show fiction enhances empathy and imagination (Scientific American,) . By widening the scope of what we read, we widen the scope of how we think. Practical Applications for Leaders 1- Curate Reading Lists That Challenge – Mix mainstream industry reports with unconventional sources. A tech leader might read anthropology; a banker might explore environmental science. 2- Encourage Team Diversity in Ideas – Invite colleagues to share insights from different fields. This builds collective intelligence. 3- Treat Reading as a Strategic Tool – Not just for knowledge, but for cultivating the mental flexibility needed in complex environments. Final Thought Murakami’s words remind us that reading is not just about absorbing information it’s about shaping perspective. If we only consume what everyone else consumes, our thinking risks becoming predictable. To lead differently, we must read differently. Because fresh ideas rarely come from familiar shelves.

47

1 Comment

The fact-checking landscape is shifting again: Google recently retired ClaimReview, a decade-old program that helped searches identify fact-checked content from trusted sources. While the decision caught fact-checkers off guard — with no advance consultation — it reflects broader changes in how information gets surfaced online. For fact-checkers who've been using ClaimReview to reach billions of searches annually, this means adapting to new realities. Some are already exploring how the open-source technology can work with AI systems and emerging platforms. It's a reminder of how quickly the digital information ecosystem evolves — and why diversification matters for news organizations and fact-checkers alike. My analysis of what this change means and where the industry goes next: https://lnkd.in/ePpmk26D #Journalism #FactChecking #DigitalTransformation #MediaInnovation

68

3 Comments

There are massive disparities in how people view AI, in their degree of nervousness, excitement, trust in systems, and personal impact. This updated Ipsos AI Monitor 2025 shares many fascinating insights. English-speaking countries remain the most nervous and unexcited, with Asia dominating as most positive nations. The second chart I've shared here is interesting, in that while people are relatively positive about the impact of AI on their job and also the economy, they are considerably less positive about the impact of AI on the job market. Not surprisingly, those nations that believe AI will benefit the economy are most likely to be excited. The global average for believing AI will profoundly change their life in the next 3-5 years is 67%, ranging from 52% in Britain to 84% in Indonesia. So most people Of course, if people believe AI will profoundly change their lives there is likely cause for at least some nervousness and hopefully also excitement. Where the balance lies in a nation, and within any specific organization, must shape governance and change initiatives to maximize good cause for excitement and minimize cause for nervousness. Because it is a wild ride.

54

10 Comments

I’ve written up my first thoughts on Axel Voss’s draft own-initiative report on generative #AI and #copyright: https://lnkd.in/evd2S4-j If you’re willing to look past the somewhat unnecessary back and forth on whether AI training is covered by the TDM exception (which Voss ultimately seems to agree should be the case), the report contains some genuinely interesting insights into the impact of generative AI on the sustainability of creative production. It also includes useful proposals on remuneration and transparency. As I explore in my blog post, there is an encouraging overlap between his report and the arguments made in my recent white paper: https://lnkd.in/exFNGjWS The key difference? While I argue that we need to look beyond copyright to address the systemic imbalances created by generative AI, Voss remains firmly rooted within the copyright framework.

50

Most AI systems today aren't really AI. They're automation. A new episode of Data & AI Mastery has landed. 🎧🙌 This week, I sat down with Daniel Hulme, Chief AI Officer at WPP, to explore a bold rethinking of AI. We discussed: → Why blindly chasing trends & buzzwords doesn't work → How marketing is being reengineered through AI → Why the most popular definition of AI misses the mark → Understanding the mindset shift needed to build long-term defensibility Eager to move past hype & into action? This one's a must listen: 🍎 Apple: https://lnkd.in/entD7Rum 🎧 Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ewS7JUNC ▶️ YouTube: https://lnkd.in/e_gaHvw3

40

3 Comments

Are we quickly heading to “Posting Zero?” That's the question posed in this excellent New Yorker article last week from Kyle Chayka (https://lnkd.in/e7QKGK5u) on a key trend you may have noticed the last few years: Fewer and fewer people are actually posting to social media. Yes, millennials (one of the biggest groups of early social media users to post often) are coming of age, settling down and probably, as a result, posting less. Key quote: “I think people are more suspicious of oversharing, generally, some of which is probably a useful and healthy correction from how much we were all sharing a decade ago.” Yes, expectations have changed around social. I used to love Twitter and actually talking to people on the internet. I met so many people in the early Twitter days just by chatting. I used to love writing on my blog—again resulting in so many new relationships. But in 2025, it’s all about video—a channel some (or maybe many) are uncomfortable creating content in (and one that, increasingly, is much more focused on creators than normal folks like us). Key quote: “Influencers and brand accounts can afford to adapt to the higher standards, investing in ring lights and phone mounts, while the rest of us wrestle with our iPhone camera apps.” Yes, many people are bored with social because it’s not “social” anymore. You really don’t use social to “talk” to anyone anymore. There’s very little community left. And again, all that video (which promotes voyeurism vs. engagement). This has meant many have resigned themselves to lurking and probably using 1-2 channels max (probably some combo of Facebook, Insta and TikTok). Key quote: “Our feeds used to surface undiscovered pearls of content; now only prominent accounts are rewarded. If there’s no guarantee that our friends will even see what we post, then what is the incentive to keep doing it?” And yes, there is a risk of being canceled if you say the wrong thing (or the wrong way) on social. This really peaked during the pandemic, but it feels like we’re getting back to that point now. This is leading to more people just saying “eff it, I don’t want to get canceled so I’m not posting anything.” Key quote: “It can feel safer to retreat altogether, sharing personal thoughts or images in the confines of a private group chat or text thread.” And in the end, we may end up with this—in fact, I fear we’re already there: “Posting Zero would mean the end of social media as it was once conceptualized, as a real-time record of the world created by anyone who was experiencing anything at all. But the presence of normies was what made social media worth tuning into. In their wake, like detritus on a once busy beach, there will be only dry corporate marketing, A.I.-generated slop, and dreck from thirsty hustlers attempting to monetize a dwindling audience of voyeurs.” Ugh.

38

5 Comments

Can AI help drive more conversations around women’s health? Yes. But does AI have an inherent gender bias? Also yes, sadly. Here’s an example of that happening: Research from LSE has uncovered worrying gender bias in AI tools already used by over 50% of the UK’s councils to summarise social care case notes. The study tested 29,616 case summary pairs and notes from 617 adult social care users. When given identical notes with only the gender changed, Google’s Gemma model described men’s needs as “complex” while women’s summaries were more likely to downplay needs, framing them as “independent” or “able to manage”. In real life, that difference in language matters. It can mean women receiving less care, simply because an algorithm underestimates their needs. When we talk about tech efficiency, we can’t forget equity. When designing, training, and deploying AI, language isn’t just words - it also determines access to vital support and whose voices get heard, so we can’t take this lightly. We should be using AI to drive more visibility of diverse voices, not let it take us in the wrong direction. 📸 - UN Women.

45

26 Comments