Stop trying to be interesting — start being interested
Opinion
It’s time we stopped performing thought leadership and started pursuing actual thought if we want the industry to be better.
Everyone in advertising and media now wants to be the smartest person in the chatroom.
And we’ve built an entire ecosystem to reward that impulse. Panels. Podcasts. LinkedIn posts with carefully rationed line breaks. Thought leadership that’s heavy on the “leadership” and light on the “thought”.
We’re all locked in the same performative loop — trying to be relevant, original, provocative, viral, liked.
The problem is too many of us (myself included) are caught in a trap of “influence”.
I’ve been a consultant and freelance writer for three months and already I can feel the constant pressure of having to perform, to be “engaging”, to strike a balance between being original and relevant (otherwise known as the sweet spot on what Allen Gannett calls the Creative Curve in his insightful 2018 book).
Last week, I chaired an IPA panel at Advertising Week Europe asking whether influencers had become too influential in advertising. It struck a nerve. And not just with the audience.
As I introduced myself, I casually mentioned I’d spent “a decade” covering this industry. Then I checked the date. Exactly 10 years ago on 7 April, I started as a news editor at Campaign.
A decade ago, I’m not even sure we were using the word “influencer”. Now, we’re all trying to be one. We have an oversupply of answers.
So it’s time to shift gears.
This column isn’t here to shout louder. It’s here to ask better questions. To listen harder. And to go beyond the obvious takes by speaking to the people who actually know what they’re talking about.
Here comes the pitch
So this week I want to ask: should clients stop pitching indies against holding company media agencies?
This came up in conversation recently, as WPP and other networks make more noise about offering “inventory media” (aka principal-based media in the US).
It’s the agency-as-wholesaler model: we’ll bulk-buy the media, then sell it on to clients at a discount. Sounds efficient. Looks attractive on a spreadsheet.
Makes perfect sense — if you’re a global, multi-market brand with a tangled web of marketing teams and a chief financial officer who loves the word “margin”. (Read Nick Manning for a more grown-up analysis of what this is and why this matters.)
But if you’re a single-market advertiser in the UK, the question is: why are you even in the room with these people?
Dave Barnett, co-founder of indie December19, tells me his agency now seriously considers refusing to enter pitches against holding company media shops. “If a potential client is doing that,” he told me, “it tells me they don’t really know what they want. And that’s a red flag.”
Not so simple
Barnett is not wrong.
The pitch process is a mirror — if you’re inviting both indies and networks, you’re either hedging your bets or fundamentally misunderstanding the kind of partner you need.
There’s a simple way to look at this: holdcos are built for scale; indies for service. If you want clean, transparent buying from people who aren’t bound to global trading deals, go indie. If you want leverage, volume deals and media-as-margin, go holdco.
Simple. Except… it’s not.
Let’s not forget:
• Indies rely on third-party programmatic suppliers — and we’ve all seen how that model has helped wreck online publishing and expose this industry to new depths of abuse and fraud.
• They use OOH and audio buying specialists — often the same ones as the networks.
• And their international capabilities? Still patchy at best.
Meanwhile, if a brand knows what to ask for, and is willing to pay for it, there’s no reason it can’t get a transparent service from a network agency.
But that’s a big if. You’d need strong contracts, proper remuneration and ideally an auditor (which most single-market advertisers can’t afford and don’t understand).
So we’re back to the fundamental problem: most clients don’t actually know how the media sausage is made. And that means they don’t know how to choose the right butcher.
Let’s play a new game
That’s what this column is for.
Not to add more noise — but to ask better questions. I want people to contact me in response to the question I’m asking and I’ll consider featuring it in the following edition of my column.
To be clear, I’m not soliciting perfectly written vox pops from PRs. Readers will have to trust my judgement that I’m curating the right answers from the best people as I promised. That’s how I add value — I may no longer be the editor of this proud publication, but the cliché is true: once a journalist, always a journalist.
Because no-one can guarantee themselves or others that you will be interesting. We should all stop trying to play that game and be suspicious of anyone who promises you they can make you interesting (especially the oleaginous and sycophantic GPT chatbot).
But I’m serious about this: if we want media and advertising to be better, we have to stop playing the “interesting” game and start playing the “interested” one.
And I’ve got at least a decade of questions I still want to ask.
To respond to today’s question directly or to suggest a new one for the next edition of this column, leave a comment below.
Omar Oakes was founding editor of The Media Leader and continues to write a column as a freelance journalist and communications consultant for advertising and media companies. He has reported on advertising and media for 10 years and was previously media and tech editor of Campaign. His column on The Media Leader was nominated for the BSME’s B2B Column of the Year in 2024.