S6 Ep 1 | Sir Martin Sorrell: Setting the Record Straight on Work, AI, and What’s Next

Welcome to Beyond Marketing, the podcast. I'm Marijano Vizam, the founder and CEO of MGM Power, Global Integrated Market Agency. Today we are joined by one of the most influential figures in the history of modern marketing. Sir Martin Sorrell is the founder and former CEO of WPP and today he is the executive chairman of S4 Capital. For decades, his thinking has shaped how agents are structured, how creativity and strategy are valued and how marketing operators at a global scale. In this episode we explore leadership through transformation, the evolution of agents models and why creativity and strategy remain essentially especially in the AI driven world. Sir Martin Sorrell, what a pleasure. Thank you so much for taking the time to be here this morning. So I would like to start with as more like everyone knows Sir Martin Sorrell, but with your own words, who is Sir Martin Sorrell? Well, that's for others to figure out, not for me to say it. Not for you. I would say like a big fan, big admirer off your work and not sure if you remember where we met. Where was that? Cannes Lions. Okay. I have brought to you and we saw the conversations, so I'm very glad that conversation brought us here. Good. We just wanted to get from you, like with all chains that's happening in the industry of marketing and we're seeing like how AI is kind of scaling really rapidly, but a lot of things. It's not scaling rapidly. I think that's the issue. It's scaling, I would say incrementally, but not rapidly. We see a little bit in visualization and copyrighting. We see a little bit in personalization at scale. We see a little bit in media planning and buying, but no wholesale adoption except maybe in the autumn of ill verticals because of Chinese EV competition and AV competition and then secondly in financial services because of the Fintech platform. But I would disagree. I think AI has not affected the industry yet to any significant degree. It's people talk a lot about it like you do and others and on podcasts. But that's not the reality. So I disagree. I think it's been very slow in terms of adoption and what probably is needed a little bit of economic force, I mean a little bit of economic pressure in order to it because in those two verticals I mentioned automobiles and financial services, there's economic pressure from lower cost alternative suppliers or producers or manufacturers, that is blowing a chill wind for the fossil fuel manufacturers or car manufacturers, the traditional manufacturers and also the traditional branch banks. So I sort of disagree. I think the threshold, people test, they do workshops, experiment, but they don't do much. I think when I maybe I did it for as well in the same as I scale a lot of capacity. There's a lot of capacity being built, yes, but that's not agencies doing that, in fact it's probably the opposite because the agency's probably haven't built capacity, hence you see IPG surrendering giving up and being acquired by Omnicom and whether there will be other similar capacity reductions, I don't know, we'll have to see what happens. I mean, Densu International is for sales, certainly in whole or in part, WPP probably is vulnerable because its market cap is now what, 5 billion, having been as high as 20, 25 billion and you got two Omnicom and publicists at 25 billion, you got Densu at about 7 or 8 billion and WPP at 5 and have asset one and a half. So I had to see how that shakes out, I don't see anybody at the moment who's got the enthusiasm or guts to take on the significant management challenges at Densu International or WPP because they're both in a tough spot. Havas does have capacity, it doesn't have financial capacity on its own and the Bollare family have got access to significant financial capacity to make it work, but beyond that it's quite difficult for Havas on its own. The two companies that are in real trouble, Densu International and WPP, it's so complex and then there's this cloud of AI hanging over it because people are finding difficult to analyze whether it's what exactly the impact of AI will be on the traditional industry. Markets have said, because they've compressed the valuations, I mean even publicists and Omnicom are selling significantly and market prices are significantly off their highs. So the market is saying we're not sure about what the impact of AI will be on your traditional model. So we've got maybe 26, you know, President Trump was on broadcasting last night about what may or may not happen next year, we'll see what happens in the midterms. I think he'll do well in the midterms. It was intriguing that Susie Wiles gave that interview to Vanity Fair. I mean looking at it, looking at the pictures, they claim that she was misproteed or the quotes were mispositioned, but looking at the pictures, they obviously knew that it was either going to be a book or a major article because there was some heavily stylized photographs. But what's interesting about it is why did she give that set of interviews? And one of the possibilities could be that she's nervous about the results of the midterms and won't be around afterwards. I don't think so from the article she was quite confident, I think she's right to be confident. The big beautiful tax bill will kick in in March or April of next year with a lot of subsidies for taxpayers. So I think Trump will go to the country in the midterms with a tailwind. But the economic difficulties may come after that, and that's when the pressure might build. I mean, US companies are doing well at the minute, EPS Q3 of this year was up 12%, you take out the hyperscalers up 9%, next year still forecasting Goldman or forecasting 12% EPS growth which is very strong. And it's a little bit odd for the agencies because usually when companies are doing well or not usually, historically when companies do well and profitably, agencies do well. That's not the case now. And I think the reason is agencies are really heavily represented in the 300 billion of ad revenues that are going south in traditional media, rather than the 700 billion which are going north dominated by alphabet, by Meta, by Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent and by Don. So it's a difficult environment for traditional agencies to navigate and I think there will be continued pressure because of the growth of digital, now 70% of the market, probably by 2030, be up to about 80% and it continues to dominate. And the agencies don't have as significant representation in that growing 700 billion as they do have in the declining 300 billion. So my view is AI will become more and more attractive, but it needs a little bit of economic pressure on clients to adopt faster. It's about change management, it's not about technology, about change management. And Turkey's don't vote for Christmas so people will be hesitant to change unless until they have to. But do you have any optimistic view for the future of the future of agents because you're saying like about the traditional agencies, no. So what do you, what do you view about? Well, it depends, you know, everybody conflates what's happening in the traditional markets with the digital markets and it's two different markets. You know, it's a trillion dollars or last year, it was a trillion dollars this year, it would be about 1.1 next year, 1.2. And last year 700 billion was growing and that's around, as I said before, around alphabet around meta, Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent and Tiktok or Byte Dance. The traditional, the 300 billion, the fight for Warner Brothers discovery between Netflix and Paramount is really a fight over an asset which has got declining revenue. Yeah, it's crazy. Well, it's not crazy. I mean, it may well, I wouldn't say that Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters and Reed Hastings are crazy, far from it, they're extremely intelligent. So I assume they know what they're doing. But the struggle between Paramount and between Netflix for Warner Brothers discovery is a struggle for a company whose ad revenues are declining and it's a company which didn't have live sport like Disney or like Fox, which didn't have live sport to butter us the decline. So when you say about agencies, if you're talking about traditional agencies, the future is pretty grim. If you're talking about digital agencies, agencies that are focused on that space, that's the space that's growing, growing at 10, 15, 20%, I would say the future is rosy. So unfortunately, analysts, when they analyze the business, journalists, when they write about the business, conflate two markets into one and there's two different worlds. One is a digital world is growing and one is a traditional, there's declining. You talk a lot about creative and a strategy not being replaced by technology, meaning EI. Well, I mean, I think that is the case, but of course it's the hope. I mean, there is, I think for the next, I don't know how long it will be, if you look at some of the stuff that Eric Schmidt has been talking about, so there's some interesting actually, some films on TikTok of Eric Schmidt talking about the impact of machines on not just our industry, but generally, there will come a time when machines will be more powerful than people. There are some people who believe that's not going to never can be the case. I'm not sure I agree and Jeffrey Hinton, who is one of the founders of DeepMind, if you remember, he resigned from DeepMind because he thought he was worried about the existential threat of AI, the existential threat being that machines will become more powerful than people. Well, we in our industry cling on to the belief, I think quite rightly, I don't think it's wrong, but it may be a short to medium term thing that the technology is the tools and people will be empowered by the tools and strengthened by the tools, which I think is the case in the short to medium term. Whether that means in the longer term, we might be in a situation where the machines actually become more powerful than people will have to see. It's interesting. In Eric's, I was looking at the film a couple of days ago, he says that when machines become more powerful, we should pull the plug. We shall see. We shall see. There will be bad actors, the Oppenheimer moment, as I've said before, has gone. The opportunity for us to control the expansion of AI in a coordinated fashion for governments to do it has gone, you know, they've gone beyond that. These are nation states. The head of MI6 is very interesting. She did her annual interview a couple of days ago and she said that the heads of the tech companies are like country presidents and I've been saying for a significant period of time, they're like nation states. If you run a company which has got a $4 trillion market cap or like a $5 trillion and Musk's compensation is geared to Tesla getting the $10 trillion, a $10 trillion company, and I think Musk will get there, a $10 trillion company would be the, if you equate market cap to GDP, would be the third largest country in the world after the U.S. and China. The U.S. is 28 trillion and China is 18. So they are like country presidents and if you're 4 or 5 trillion, I was in India recently last week or so, you know, that's as big as India, bigger than the UK, bigger than France, bigger than Germany, but probably about same size as Germany, bigger than Italy, bigger than Spain. These guys, they are all guys actually, there's a lot of women amongst them, sadly, these guys are country presidents and they have enormous power and they're investing half a trillion a year in expanding our capacity, data centers, energy sources, and chip capabilities. So they're going to get more powerful, not less powerful, but that ability to control them I think has gone. So I'm not gloomy about it, what I'm just saying is, I think, realistic about it. So for the agency industry, it means you have to accelerate your exit from traditional media and accelerate your entry into the digital ecosystem or whatever you want to call it. And what about the consumer? What about the consumer? Because consumer, we can see that more and more. Yes, of course, the engagement with technology of the AI, but they use the clear consumer and brand experience. Consumers have engaged more with AI than enterprise. That's the interesting thing is that we as consumers, you use AI far more, I think, all the data shows than enterprise have used it in doing their business. So the consumers actually have engaged with it far more. I mean, everybody you talk to from kids aged four or five, maybe even younger now, to people my age, are amazed by the power of AI. What it can deliver in a nanosecond in terms of information, in terms, you know, you use nano-banana, I was using it recently, they also go, it's quite extraordinary what you can do with that. So, you know, everybody can become a copyrighter and a visualizer, everybody can become an advertising agent, at least in some sense, we'll see how capable they become as a result of it. But no, it's democratizing. And I would, I sort of disagree with you. I think consumers, you know, almost like a K economy, where consumers have embraced the technology and enterprises have only done it sporadically or episodically, they haven't done it generally. Because, oh, just more like on the human connection side, so do you think this will be less and less? Well, it's not just about, yeah, one of the things we're having to wrestle with, it was accelerated by COVID, is the lack of connection. What's really interesting is people crave experiences, maybe because they have less social and interaction, you know, the propensity, if that's the right way of putting it, of people to travel, to experience live experiences, to want to engage with one another, has got greater. I mean, when you look at the travel statistics, given the way the economies are behaving, you look at the travels statistics, you look at where people are spending their money, you look at inflation and it's in back on food prices and everything, it is quite remarkable that people just travel through airports, it is quite remarkable. In fact, you know, I would say, I don't know what the stats are, but my guess is that business travel because of the use of technology. So the technology enables you to do things that you didn't do before, but live experiences, you know, there is a thirst for. So all these technologies, because they become more, they're used in a more distributed way, you know, probably are going to cause all these social issues that we talk about in relations to, you know, loneliness, fewer friends, all those, all those statistics that people talk about. Well, it's really interesting about the technology and I'm intuitively against the idea is the technology enables you to do things in a much more distributed way. I don't think being out of the office is a good thing, I think people should be in the office seven days a week. I was about to ask you that, but all the data I've been involved with Harvard Business School on the D3 initiative around AI, the data from the research they have is really interesting, suggests the distributed working is more effective and more productive. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think in our own case with S4 and Monks during COVID, at the beginning of it, it was good and we gained from it because we were, we are digital natives and tech nerds and therefore it was a good environment for us. But I think it's sort of over time, as people have become quite, quite used to it. It's not being abused, but I think it's become a little bit more like a daisicle and I think there's a real issue, most of the people my age or my generation who are running or trying to run companies, we've seen it with WVP and supposedly not well received, we've seen it with Omnichom, we've seen it with the JP Morgan, they've all say come back into the office. And they don't like making these huge offices and 8 billion pounds of cost for a building in New York and they got to build one in Canary Wharf here, I was in Mumbai, they also got a huge office there as well, so they're in the business of building huge offices. Not knowing if they can, it's been a lot of spend if people are not in them, but I think the distributed working, certainly in our industry, if you lose the spark, the sparks flying between people, constructively, flying between people, no, there are some jobs like coding, I guess, those coding gets done by now, but engineering jobs maybe can be done remotely. But generally in our business saying it's good for people to be able to do it. It's important. It was a piece of research that the HBS people did on, you know, the argument against distributed working is young people and the entrance don't learn about the company. So what the researchers done was develop programs for companies to get people to learn about companies, learn about company cultures in a distributed way and the results were pretty good according to the research. So actually a lot of the HBS research points to, you know, the opposite of what I think which is distributed working works, it's more, it produces more productivity, it's particularly good for men and women with big families or with families. The trend post-COVID was to move away from city centers or because of expense as well as COVID, etc. So distributed working may be a factor of life that we have to become aware of and have to, in my case, lump. Do you, you mentioned a few times that you don't believe in work-life balance? No, I didn't say that, you know, again that's missquoting, it's a bit like Susie Wiles and her Arctic. Well, actually she didn't say she was missquoting, she said it was out of context. Now I didn't say that, what I said was if you're not having fun, then it's not, you know, then it's work. Right? And we're saying if you do what you enjoy, work-life balance goes out the window, doesn't it? If you enjoy something, you presumably would, you like to do it. I agree. Therefore, it's not work. I mean, work in the sense of, it's a four letter word beginning with W, which some people don't like. But if you do what you enjoy, then it's, then it's not work. I agree. So that's all I was saying. I wasn't saying work-life balance, I wasn't saying family isn't important or anything like that. I was just saying that, you know, you should enjoy what you do. Okay, if you're passionate about what you do, so, and what about S-4? What about S-4? What about S-4? Well, we've got, you know, we've got a lot more work to do. I mean, we're digital-only data-driven, we go to marketers, more efficient, and we're unitary. I think that's a model, ironically, which the holding companies in a funny way have all got to do more of. I mean, they've got to be more digital, they've got to be more data-driven. They've got to be more agile because they're indicted for lacking agility. And they're multi-branded, and all of them are trying to become one company. I mean, we're going to, we won't, we're baited breath to see what the strategic unveil for WPP is in January with McKinsey's help, but my bet would be, we have to be one WPP. You know, we have to get rid of all that overhead that's built up at the holding company level, the group brand level, and then the brand level. You know, if you look at the people in C containerhouse, for example, in London, you know, what do they all do? So it'll be about overhead, and it'll be about how do we get everybody to work together in a much more concerted way. You know, it's not, if you're running Ogle V, for example, you really have to look at it in the context of WPP, you can't look at it in the context of Ogle V. So, and Omnicom are going to do the same, publicists have done it, or have done it in the most sophisticated degree, have asked, are doing it, Densu are tried it, but maybe there's something in the Japanese management culture that prevents it from happening. It hasn't happened very successfully. Now, coming back to S4, we have to do it more effectively than we've done before. We haven't done it as well as we could do. I think the challenge of integrating agency based on, you know, integration per se. I mean, integrating business, organic growth is always better than growth through mergers or acquisitions, mergers and acquisitions are difficult, they're easy to do, but difficult to implement and getting people to work together. Our industry is not an industry where people work together easily, you know, they love to be on podcasts, they love to be on the, you know, front page or campaign or adage, and it's more about them, the individual, the institution, the real, and I've said this before, more than work-life balance, is the real jewels are the people who share. So, those people who, you know, who can run Ogilvy, I would call out somebody like Miles Young, Miles Young could run Ogilvy and run it brilliantly and at the same time contribute to what was going on at WQP. Those people are very rare, there are people that can run a brand well, but then don't in the context of the organization share stuff. AI is really interesting because it may insure through democratizing knowledge that that happens because people control things by controlling information, and if you're running a silo vertical, how do you maintain control of it at the top, is by restricting the information. Jensen Wang is really interesting, he has 51 direct reports, I've said this many, many times. You went to McKinsey and asked them what's the, the appropriate management span, they were say 12 or 13 direct reports. With Jensen, he manages to do it with 51, doesn't do it apparently many one-on-ones, sets people objectives for the year and monitors their success or otherwise in achieving those objectives. And I think that's what you're going to see, I think you're going to see flattening the organization when people really adopt AI at scale. And the other thing that's interesting is that DPU go inside companies, I think the more people are prepared to share knowledge, the DPU go, this sort of like an inverse relationship between sharing and where you are in a company, the DPU go, the more people share, the further up you go, the monkey mucks like to control the information and prevent it, because that's how they maintain their power, and what you really want is you want everybody sharing at huge scale, and that an AI and it was you do that. If you give people access to everything that we have, I think it's 900 people working on Google globally. If you give them access to everything we're doing on Google, as long as it's secure and write the right management levels, that's a huge advantage because everybody knows the data, and that's I think what people don't understand still, the internet is the first breakthrough, smartphones, mobile phone, what's the second breakthrough if you like, and then the third breakthrough is AI. You've been in this journey for many, many, many years, do you get excited every time there is an industry change? Well, I mean, whether it's exciting or not, I mean it's interesting to explore, you've got the IPO of SpaceX coming in, 26, and you know, been thinking about that, I mean market evaluation, people, it's gone from 800 billion, I think, to potentially one and a half trillion. It'll make, you know, musk even wealthier. No, you get excited about that. I mean, yes, I mean, you do, and it's going to, to me, SpaceX will be like Google when it floated in 1999, I think it was, Amazon when it went public you know, SpaceX to me will be another Nvidia, obviously, Microsoft, I mean, these are all companies. I mean, the interesting thing about our industry is that we've witnessed the growth and development of all those companies, SpaceX probably doesn't influence our, I'm going to say our industry as much as maybe the other things I mentioned, both the internet did, the smartphone did, AI does, but maybe we'll have an agency on the moon, who knows, or on Mars, but the, but you know, that heralds another, another really interesting era, so, and SpaceX, you've had Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin, you've had Richard Branson, all SpaceX explorers, and you've had other, there was the Russian guy, remember his name, who was also really interested in space travel, Yuri, I can't remember what his second name was, but so you've had these people who've said how important space development and exploration will be, but you know, I think SpaceX and the IPA will be a seminal moment in the development of space travel. And what about, can I ask the future in terms of, you talk about the agency model we're changing in 2026? Well, you get, again, you know, I think you're painting everything with the same brush, there's a sort of traditional agency model which is changing. It's changing. So, you could say, you know, if you were looking, the irony is, and nobody's written about this, the original holding company was IPG. There was a guy called Marion Harper in the 1950s, we used to have a Boeing jet that used to, I think it was, maybe it wasn't a jet, maybe it was a jet at that time, which he was supposed to, the apocryphal stories of him coming to London and staying, because McCann and Lintess and others had their major operations with the US and Europe at that time, because Asia and Latin America, Ogle V and JWT developed their businesses in Asia and Latin America, but the Americans have been very focused on the US and Europe. Anyway, Marion Harper used to come, and his theory was, you couldn't have conflicting accounts in the same agency, I don't know whether his thinking was also that it was better to have people focused on smaller units and incentivized around small units, I don't know, but certainly part of, the big part of his thesis was, if you want Unilever and Procter in the same way, Ford and GM and the same business, you had to have separate brands. That's now, I mean the irony is, Krakowsky Surrender sells IPG to Omnicom, my forecars is Krakowsky will be out of that pretty quickly, now that the deal's done and the senior IPG management seemed to have been crushed, I was in India, as I said this week and there's a lot of uncertainty there for that reason, because the IPG management, which in India for example is quite strong, you know, sort of being subjugated to Omnicom management, I think that's causing stresses and strains already, even though we're in the sort of first or second innings, but that model is a busted flush and so and the other problem is what I said to you before, which is the holding companies are concentrated in the 300 billion, it's not growing on the 700 billion, it's great. So they have to flip their model into a one publicist, one WPP, one Omnicom model, create a more unitary company for the reasons we've been discussing and then of course they have to embrace the digital and data side. To be fair, you know, publicists has got a better story than the reason the publicists wins business, they've got a bit of story, whether they can deliver a story, that's another story. And then the markets that will be growing for the next two to three years, they talk a lot about India, so do you think there's a way out of that? No, I think, you know, US-China relationships are not good, I don't think they're going to get any better, they might do in the short term, they might come to some agreement over tariffs in the short term and the long term, they're on a collision course, the Americans think. I think the world should be a, they think the world should be a G1 world and China believes it should be G2 and I probably side with the Chinese on that, you know, the world is changing, so bricks next 11, the global south are becoming more important, the E7 is bigger than the G7 GDP wise and if you exclude China from the E7 and exclude US from the G7, the E6 bigger than the G6, so the world is changing and I think America has to get used to it. Having said that, America will always be a very strong vibrant economy, you know, it's 28 trillion out of 106, so it's almost the third of the world and in addition, most of the big companies are housed there, so, you know, if you're running an agency business, there's a US magnet that you get tracked, so US will always be strong and Canada, the Latin America I think is underrated both technologically and creatively, I think, super, super good people in both areas, Middle East and APAC, the one problem in APAC is how big do you want to be in China, China is 18 trillion, so it should be 20 percent of your business in China, at least in theory, do you want to be bigger given the Taiwan risk, probably not, so India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, all become more and more important along with, of course, Japan and Australia and New Zealand, which are the more traditional markets, Africa is too volatile, I think, longer term obviously it will become increasingly important, but it's too many conflicts too volatile, and Europe is in trouble, you know, UK is in trouble, we've had two quarters of minus and or point one, India is growing at six or seven percent, and it's bigger than the UK, right, a lot of Indians, I saw this last week were unhappy with Modi, I think Modi is really super good and a great leader, we're going to need more of Modi here I think, but they're bigger than us and they're growing at six or seven percent, when we're going backwards for two quarters at 0.1 percent, so we're in a pretty pathetic state, France is in a tough position too, Italy may be a little bit better recently than Maloney, but not much, Spain may be a little bit better, the pigs, as they call Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have done a little bit better, the periphery of Europe, but Europe has holes in deep to do, Poland okay, some of the Eastern European countries okay, but the threat of Russia, so you've got US China, Russia, I was just reading an article this morning, what it was actually in the Susie Wiles interview, she said Rubio and Trump believed that Putin wants the whole of Ukraine, or that, no, maybe it's not quite as definitive as that, but some of the things that Putin has been doing and saying and not responding to, indicates he wants the whole of Ukraine, I mean, to my mind Putin wants to recreate the Russia of Peter the Great, what Catherine the Great, and that's a problem, and then there's the Iranian problem, you know, Rihanna is not going to go away, and you know, as the recent terrible events are indicating, the extreme Muslim issue is going to be continue to be a very big issue politically, in that world its fragmentation becomes more and more important, so picking where you're going to grow a business is really more important, so two things, geographical fragmentation and then technological change, and that's another, those are two big challenges for the holding companies because they're everywhere, and there are some places they shouldn't be, and their size means their ability to adapt and develop agility and technology makes it more difficult. Is there any, where are the meat and small agents? Meat agency and small agents, so why are there opportunities for that? Well, you know, in that environment, in theory, I mean, it's only theoretical, there should be more opportunity, I mean, I'm the common IPG getting together, if my experience in India is any judge of what's going on, you know, that's one country out of 100 they operate in, there's a lot of confusion amongst clients and a lot of confusion amongst people and with confusion comes opportunity, so I would say you, it is probable that 20 in 2026 we'll see more clients reviewing what they're doing and potentially changing, but the other thing that puzzles me, and I haven't got the answer to it, is this usually when companies are growing at the rate they're going, if their EPS is growing at 12%, which as I said before, the S&P 500 grew in that and the Q3 and the forecast for next year are 12%, you would expect agencies to be doing well. The reason they aren't doing well, I think, is because they're concentrated in the 300 billion that's shrinking. The problem with the 700 billion that's growing is it's growing not by spending more money on marketing spend, but by filling out their capacity, I would just read an article about Oracle spending 35 billion on expanding its data capacity and AI capacity, which is half of its revenues and upping it spend and getting indebted in the process. The other companies like Microsoft and Alphabet and Matter and Amazon, although they're spending more money than Oracle, they're not as indebted and the Oracle spending on AI is causing concern. I mean, the share price boomed on the AI orders and there's now come way back. Maybe there's a mix in there about the Ellissons or Larry Ellisson guaranteeing the Warner Brothers discovery bit by Skydance, by Paramount Skydance, what I don't know, but the CD at the credit of Fortswap spreads on Oracle of widen significantly. So people are getting a little bit nervous about the debt loads that are being taken on and some of the arrangements, the private debt financing of that spending. So I have to see how that plays out, but the problem for us as far amongst is our tech clients, which are 50% of our revenue, are really spending money on capex, not objects. So not spending money on marketing spend or as much as they're used to, they're really focusing on increasing hair and capacity. Thank you. I think it's incredible to see you're like, how interesting the AI is and it's playing around not just companies, but also clients' decision, as you just said, about spending. In terms of people's job, because you talk a lot about the future of jobs with the AI, if you have to give a piece of advice for jobs that can be replaced by technology, what those jobs, what those people will have to, how do we have to find other ways to learn skills? I mean, obviously you don't know. You can guess in the areas that we see impact the AI in our industry. So visualization and copywriting, I think there'll be fewer art directors and fewer copywriters. So there'll be fewer opportunities. There'll be better opportunities using the technology, but there'll be fewer of them. So that's one. On personalisation at scale, probably more jobs, because we can do things at a huge scale and we can do more of them. Media planning and buying, there are apparently 250,000 people doing media planning and buying. There'll be fewer of them and the algorithms will be more important, but the output from the algorithms is better than what the human mind can do. And therefore, be more opportunity for adoption. General efficiency areas, probably there'll be some new jobs created, some more jobs destroyed. And then on the democratisation and knowledge, I think that's a huge opportunity, because I think that will be, will provide more opportunities within the side companies. But overall, you know, Sam Altman, a couple of years ago, said 95% of advertising jobs are going to go. I think he was exaggerating to make a point, but I think directionally he's probably right. I mean, if you put, if you pin me against all some people say, no, it's wrong, you know, every technological development, including the printing press has created more opportunities. I'm not sure that this time, that's right. I think we'll be able to have more holidays as a result. So, so I think there will be different kinds of jobs. But, you know, my five years ago, you said, what advice can I give? I would say learn Chinese, a couple years ago, I had it Spanish, and I always said learn code. You don't have to learn them anymore. You know, AI can do it for you, but I think you still have to learn those things, because it sort of educates your mind or trains your mind in a different way. But some of the things that are happening, we'll see. We'll see, maybe space travel will give us so much. I can't say that you're excited of all this space travel. I hate heights. I get a bird to go on a deep pile carpet. So, I'm not, I'm not one for traveling, space ships and all that sort of stuff. But I do think it's fascinating to see what may or may not happen. So, my sir, thank you so much for being here. So, if you're not following us yet, please make sure you do on Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Podcasts and Apple Podcasts, and now we have an on Instagram account beyond marketing podcasts where I can see all the news, all the teasers of the guests and following us that too.