← AdTechGod Pod
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
Host
A word from our sponsors with the average person spending more than five hours a day on their phone, you have to ask yourself, what's your mobile strategy? Inmobi Advertising helps brands and publishers thrive in the modern mobile era with AI powered solutions to acquire, monetize and delight the right users at scale at each step in their journey. From a pioneering DSP built to accelerate app growth in a privacy first world to a leading exchange and SSP Forrester just named a mobile must have Inmobi Advertising has the tools to capture user attention on the most personal device. Check out their Spotlight series on the Advertising Forum for key strategies to mobilize in 2025 and visit go.inmobi.com pod to learn more. Again, that's go.inmobi.com/pod in mobi driving Real Connections welcome to today's episode of the Refresh Bytech God where we bring you the latest and greatest in advertising news. Don't forget to follow the Markitecture account on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube for more news related content before we jump in, I've got some exciting updates from Architecture Media. First up, we have Sweet Sweets, our video series from the Advertising Forum being recorded in Las Vegas between January 6th and 8th. It's packed with executive interviews, 2025 insights and more. Also in Las Vegas on January 8th, we're hosting an incredible panel at the Barbershop Cuts and Cocktails in the Cosmopolitan Hotel and Casino. This is in partnership with Magnite, so keep an eye out on our socials for more details. Even more events in Mark texture live on March 17 in New York City. It's all about identity. Tickets are on sale now at Markitecture Live and Miami. The party is back. It is April 28th. Keep an eye out for those posts coming up soon. Okay, let's get into it. Lots of news, lots of industry chatter happening. We have Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads, which is a nonprofit 501C3. We have Bernard Urban, the President at Branded Content Strategic Investments and the founder at Silverblade Partners with us today. And last but not least, we have Mike Evans, the Senior Vice President, Demand Facilitation at Magnite. Everyone, thank you so much for being here on such short notice. I really appreciate your time.
- [02:34]
Ariel Garcia
Excited to be here.
- [02:35]
Mike Evans
Thanks for having us.
- [02:36]
Host
Of course. Anytime. I'm excited to be here, so I'll kind of give a quick summary of what's happening. Omnicom and IPG are merging and they're creating a over $25 billion marketing behemoth the official Omnicom statement says that they're combining strengths to deliver innovative data driven structure or solutions. And this deal is expected to close at some point in 2025. Not sure the entire market feels the same way. So yes, there's synergies, yes, there's innovation happening, but there's also some negative impacts as well. And that comes in the form of potential layoffs, losing sight of the interests of their clients, et cetera. And I really want this to be an open discussion with opinions, just to hear you three experts and how you feel about this huge merger in this, in the space. Ariel, I'll kick it off to you. How do you see the agency world changing from this size of a merger and how do you see it kind of impacting, you know, smaller agencies as well as like mid size agencies in the space?
- [03:34]
Ariel Garcia
Yeah, I mean this has the potential to be a massive consolidation of power, which of course, the more spending that's consolidated with the holding companies, the more leverage is consolidated with the holding companies. And that's not a positive for competition. But I think the more important thing here is to actually understand what their plans are.
- [03:55]
Mike Evans
Right.
- [03:56]
Ariel Garcia
There's kind of three major benefits that are making their rounds in all of the press about this acquisition. The first is the obvious low hanging fruit, the $750 million in synergies from combining largely what they say are back office functions. That's fine, it's a short lived benefit, but a benefit nonetheless. The second is about acquisition of data assets, namely Omnicom through the IPG acquisition would get Axiom. I have many thoughts on that, but I'll get there. And then the last one is basically allegedly IPG has maintained that it does not do principal trading or has not until very, very recently. And so there's this untapped pool of alleged IPG clients that would be into that. I guess, you know, having been at IPG, but also having spent a long time at just generally speaking at a holding company, I would say that there's a difference between like Orion. It's clear publicly that orion, which is IPG's principal trading unit, has existed for a long time. Right. And so not having an offering and not having strong adoption of that offering are kind of two different things. So it boggles the mind a little, little bit how if there, if there wasn't a tremendous client appetite for it under IPG's ban, or why there suddenly would be at Omnicom. But alas, such is the benefit that.
- [05:25]
Host
They anticipate and it's an Interesting topic you bring up. And we'll kind of talk about the data and identity solution. Do we know what this looks like, Ariel? Mike, I know this is also really new news. Do you have any opinion on how this is going to change the way they work with their existing clients and what this means for personalization at scale?
- [05:46]
Mike Evans
I personally don't know. It's going to be really interesting to see where this goes, but Ariel kind of hit the nail on the head. I think that clearly like the combo of Axiom with offline data and Strength of Analect is going to be really interesting to see kind of the future scale of what this ultimately offers. But yeah, I think that that's where I'm kind of like, you know, it's got sometimes got to pass, but I will be very excited to see kind of like the overarching outcome of, of the combo of those two.
- [06:19]
Host
Yeah. And I wonder with, with so much like this is such a massive amount of consumer data and such a massive amount of client data, I mean, how do you even maintain the transparency? How do you even manage the ethical standards that's needed for this scale of data in the market? I think that's what I'm thinking about the most is that's a ton of advertiser data, user data, and so hopefully they have a plan for that in the near future.
- [06:48]
Ariel Garcia
I mean I would jump in there and take actually a quarter step back to say one of the interesting things that I see making its rounds again in the headlines about this is how Omnicom is going to get access to all of this first party data. This is very confusing. Acxiom is a third party data company. Predominantly there is an identity solution. Interestingly in like the Adstra Canesso case, there were documents that were just filed where they ask like what, what is the adoption of Real id? Recommend that people have a look at that. So really what we're talking about here is an acquisition of a third party data broker which does not render the data first party. This is the same thing that was kind of floating around back when IPG acquired Axiom in 2018, right? Like there were benefits being touted about it being first party privacy safe. Insert buzzword here data. But the reality is like this is a trove of third party data, not first party data. I'm curious to know how much, how much Omnicom is doing due diligence on that. To your point, not just about the privacy related stewardship and processes and data provenance and whatnot, but also just the quality and the utility of the data. I would be interested to know what that due diligence process looks like.
- [08:05]
Host
Mike, any opinion on that?
- [08:07]
Mike Evans
Yeah, I think in general it's going to be interesting for me to see in the industry to feel how the two coming together actually provides a lot more resources against this for future innovation. I think that that's what I'm really interested in. It's been quite some time since these assets have been acquired. If you look at Epsilon or with Publicist and Axiom, an ipg. So I, I'm, I'm excited to see kind of the combo of the two coming together where hopefully there's some more resources against it and actually can further development and innovation on the companies coming together.
- [08:44]
Host
Yeah. And they mentioned something about, you know, accelerated innovation in marketing and on their platform from a supply side platform perspective. Mike, what are some of those, I guess innovations and capabilities that you would hope they would bring to their clients and bring to, to Magnite as a, as a partner?
- [09:04]
Mike Evans
Sure. I think that like Magnite's in a really wonderful position with Omnicom and ipg. I mean, we've kind of gotten to a place over the last few years where obviously SBO has been such a huge topic. So like the consolidation I think on in our world has really already kind of occurred. I think what ultimately I'm looking forward to is the innovation around like the technology and connectivity to a company like Magnite in general and what that ultimately means for our future success with these holding companies. But I'm actually really excited. I mean, I feel we do phenomenal work with both Omnicom and IPG. They're very progressive in how they're looking at SSPs. It's taken some time to get there. I think we're an afterthought for a long period of time. But I think both have been very progressive actually in they're thinking about how they're looking at SPO and SSPs and connectivity of data into SSP specifically. And so I'm very excited about where this actually goes and I feel our position doesn't really change specifically with either, either of them. They've kind of already gotten to a place where they've significantly like cut down on partners like us that they're working with.
- [10:19]
Host
Ariel, do you, do you feel that the digital changes in the space may have impacted this merger? Obviously IPG sits in a different situation than Omnicom, but you know, the industry has shifted pretty quickly and digital and streaming television has accelerated quite fast. Do you see this type of merger benefiting the overall clients and how those budgets are allocated. What's your opinion on that? Coming from a former agency person, I.
- [10:50]
Ariel Garcia
Would say to anyone that has kept up with IPG quarterly earnings, for example, since the Acxiom acquisition, you would read a lot of just not fully being able to substantiate the value of that $2.3 billion investment. But that's not to say that there weren't some wins that were touted. And like clockwork, there were always press releases right before every earnings call about like something usually related to the identity solution. The last time it was, oh, we moved it to the cloud, right. So I think IPG has been kind of publicly floundering a bit. It's been cleared through earnings, it's clear through their financials. And it should have been obvious to whoever's watching that play out that a sale, whether that's selling off different agency units for parts or doing this, was the inevitable outcome here. It's a nice exit ramp for Philippe, but it seems to benefit, you know, a few people at the tops of these organizations the most and maybe some short term benefit to shareholders. But for clients, I think there are a lot of questions, right? Like there are clients that are going to have concerns about conflicts, right? Competitor accounts and you know, there's different appetites and attitudes about that on the client side. For some it's, it's like setting up a conflict shop is fine. And for others, they don't want their data or the people on their accounts, whether they're shared services, front end or back end, they don't want those people to be shared with their competitors. Especially when you're talking about this allegedly very sophisticated data offering and the intention of working a lot more closely with brands and their data, I do think that that competitive friction, the conflicts friction could be notable for at least some clients. The other thing is the principal trading offering and just what I've taken to describe as like this strategy of holding companies to derive more and more their revenue playing pinball with client ad budgets instead of delivering strategic partnership that is causing friction, right? Like IPG was hemorrhaging clients for a while and that is post the Axiom acquisition, right? So you get Axiom, you need to make something of it, you start pushing it, then all of a sudden we hear that they've now started doing, started again. Remember, Orion existed principal trading. So this is the inevitable conclusion here. I think that there will be some friction with clients along the way and I truly see this as benefiting very Few and being quite short sighted, right in line with what holding company strategy has devolved to.
- [13:32]
Host
I love, I love your opinions. Your opinions are so out of, out of the norm of what I have on, on my podcast. So I love that you have an incredible perspective. I like it. I honestly, I like it. It's, it's nice to, it's nice to have a different view of things. Sometimes we hear the same thing over and over again. But you're, you're so straightforward about your feelings and your opinions towards, towards these agencies. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And I think it's fair for you to state what you stated. You know, Bernard, she brought up a little bit about the 750 million in cost synergies, probably being back end office work, aligning kind of their, their admin for each of these companies. But how realistic are these projections and what risks might challenge that savings?
- [14:17]
Bernard Urban
Well, first of all, I made a note when Ariel brought that up and I personally don't think it's enough. I think that in terms of potential synergies, they're going to have to be broader than just the back office in order for this to be successful. One of the first things that I looked at in thinking about this was and there's a lot of obviously data, data points in a merger, different ratios. But I was curious to know which company, how, how much each company had cash on hand and Omnicom at the time of this announcement has 3.5 billion, whereas IPG has 1.5 billion. And then I looked at the DCF fair value of both companies and the ratio of cash on hand to those fair value. The numbers 70 to 28 are roughly the same. So you know, in terms of the valuation of the company and cash on hand, they're basically aligned except for one thing. In the last 12 months Omnicom has seen a 27% increase in cash on hand, whereas IPG has seen almost a 10% decrease in cash on hand. So you have a company that's bleeding capital, that's struggling with liquidity in a world where clients are asking for 120, 180 day payment terms on media buying with no commission or very little commission, super slim margins wrapping services around it. So you know, when you start to think about how these two companies are going to be put together, then you have to start to think about like who has access to more working capital and how will that impact the company's ability to operate day to day. So I think from an IPG perspective, you know Ariel pointed out a couple of things in terms of who does this benefit. Well, you know, maybe with ipg, you've got a scenario where on a monthly basis, maybe it's really tough to make the payroll throughout the network. You know, you're struggling with how much working capital you have or how much cash on hand. And the other thing that this reminded me of, not to date myself, but because it's a podcast and no one could see how gray my hair is. But I was thinking back to the dot com era, and there was an independent agency in San Francisco called Butler, Schein, Stern and Partners. They're still there, still independent. They did a ton of work for dot com. They never spent the money. They squirreled it away. And when the bubble exploded or imploded, depending on your point of view, they had over a year of OPEX cash on hand. They never laid off any talent. They survived, they thrived into the next decade. And I really think that from, you know, an agency perspective, having worked in both of these networks, by the way, and having owned my own agency, cash management in the space is critical.
- [17:14]
Host
Interesting. Do you think the new and improved, like, financial, I guess, standpoint, will help them reinvest and acquire? Like, what does this mean for everyone when one company, as you mentioned, is bleeding and the other one is growing? What does this mean overall for the company and their investments?
- [17:36]
Bernard Urban
I think from the standpoint of omnicomic really is there's a strategic point of view here about where the value really is. I think Ariel was hinting at that in terms of thinking about things like data, first party data. She and I have had discussions about this area in the past, and she's extremely knowledgeable about it. And then Mike and I were talking prior to coming into the studio here. We were chatting about, you know, how this is a, you know, a game changer in terms of what does the 21st century look like for an advertising agency or an advertising holding company. And, you know, it really is an inflection point in that this is definitely the final death knell of whatever was left of anything that felt like the Mad Men era. And, you know, and now this is the beginning of the AI and the data era and, and things that, that happen without people touching them. And when you think about the engine room of an advertising agency, you know, when you talk about those $750 million in synergies, you know, agencies and all professional services companies struggle, you know, with how they cover their back office overhead, right? And, you know, you have the engine of an agency Is, is the writers, the designers, the creatives, the people who make the thing that goes out the door, you know, especially at this point in time. And I think with, when you think about AI and data, I wonder what that means in terms of the future and what that looks like.
- [19:07]
Host
You mentioned AI, you mentioned data innovation, kind of like the end of the Mad Men era. I mean, how does this change everything? I mean, this changes the way you manage your clients. This changes the way you allocate your budgets. This changes the data and the solutions you have in market. This changes the way supply side platforms partner with. Instead of two, now one major agency. Where does the ROI come from from this acquisition? Does it, does it come from cost cutting? Does it come from improved performance for their clients? Does it come from incentivized deals and incentivized rates? I mean, all of these play a huge role for a merger of this magnitude. But I guess, Mike, I mean, from a supply side platform, I think there's going to be major optimizations done in the way they spend. And obviously now there's significantly more buying power from one entity instead of two. I mean, how do you view, I guess the ROI on this merger and what that means for supply in the space?
- [20:08]
Mike Evans
Yeah, listen, I think that you hit on it there. The buying clout is going to expand. There has been a lot of pressure on specifically the media owners and in the publisher landscape over the last two years. Probably more prevalent than I've ever seen in my career on these principal buying units. And they've been successful. And so now all of a sudden you're in a situation where you've got a lot more power, consolidated power. And I think what ultimately it's going to do is continue to put more pressure on the publisher landscape. And I think that that's one thing that ultimately the agency is going to go to the brands with this. Like we have best rates in market and we can return XYZ savings based off of XYZ outcomes. And I think that that's what this is certainly going to lead to. But you know, you've got less players in the space, you got less optionality, you know, you've got more centralized buying power. It's going to be a really interesting kind of situation that prevails. But I think the other interesting stat here that I was thinking about that I had pulled probably a few months ago is just we've also seen kind of a rapid increase, at least on our side of brands shifting agencies over this past year more than I've historically seen in my career. So I don't know if that's a cyclical thing every decade or whatever it might be. But, but the reality is too is like what are the options for brands now if all of a sudden like you've got a couple major players in the space? You know, I, I don't, I don't know how that, I don't know how that prevails ultimately for brands outside of the fact that like you've got a significant powerhouse for, for rates and dragging down costs essentially for media out there.
- [21:55]
Host
Yeah, I wonder, I wonder the impact on kind of like the small or like mid to long tail kind of indie agencies that are out there. Like I think the larger agencies obviously have massive buying power and they always have. I mean they're, they're hold codes for a reason. But I'm curious whether this makes people explore smaller agencies that could address their concerns and address their needs or whether this just makes it where your, you know, your RFP kind of goes out to two people and then you have a 50% chance of winning that, that client as an agency. I'm hoping it creates a ladder that we start to see more agencies come up with more focused, more localized solutions. Something that addresses these, these brands needs.
- [22:36]
Mike Evans
Yeah, I certainly think it's a opportunity for sure. When we talk about resources and you look at kind of like in our world, at least of what these two organizations have as far as resources against programmatic activation, now you're doubling those resources and who knows where what that ultimately leads to, whether it's unfortunately a handful of layoffs and, or just more resources. And then my question there is like, does that give them the ability to start to go after some of these smaller brands that they haven't historically been able to service to get more kind of money and flow into, into their specific ecosystem where they've been highly focused on the biggest brands out there and servicing them. So it will be interesting to see where that certainly shakes out and where that lands.
- [23:28]
Ariel Garcia
I would just add to that like. So I do think that the silver lining in all of this is that in the long run it will catalyze brands exploring more independent agencies, mid size agencies, smaller agencies. If you're not the biggest brands working with these holding company agencies, you're going to basically bear the brunt of the leverage that the bigger brands have. Right. So over time I think that what we'll see is the advertisers that are less powerful look for alternatives and agencies that are truly better able to meet their needs. And help them grow. So in a weird way, I think that that's actually a silver lining of all of this. The interesting thing is I saw this a lot when I was still on the agency side. But since leaving and having conversations with marketers, here's what I've gathered from their perspective. When you're talking to big brands, they look at holding companies as we go to them when we need scale, of course they're going to compete on cost. They don't go to them for strategic partnership. They are going to them solely when they need the benefit of their scale. And when they do need a strategic thought partner to help them innovate, to help them grow, that's when they're going to their smaller agencies in their roster. This is just kind of the continuation of that. And the way that I describe this is you hear agencies all the time say oh like well we need principal trading. How else are we supposed to stay profitable? But it's holding companies. They can call it strategy, I'll call it lack of strategy that put them in a position where they're now commoditized and if you're a commodity, you're competing on costs. So it's like a chicken or egg scenario. Except in this case it is very clearly there was a decision, there was a pivot point. Do we try and be more like the consultants or do we try and be big tech? And they cho they chose the latter and now they're going to live with the consequences. And I would, there's one more thing I would say and I'm going to put this out there because I'd be curious to get others thoughts. One of the things that I saw in a couple of the write ups about what the impetus for this acquisition is is to position this new mega entity better to compete with or to stop Big tech from eating their lunch. And from where I'm standing, I'm like, what do you mean you're just going to make bigger deals with those companies and give away your lunch? And so when they want you to adopt certain things and hit a threshold to get a paycheck, you'll do that. That's just going to bolster big tech dominance and it's certainly not going to improve the way that the agency's positioned in the long run. So I'd be curious if anyone else could make heads or tails of that because it was probably the most confusing rationale I saw.
- [26:26]
Bernard Urban
Yeah, I think Ariel's right on about that. I mean, look, Big tech turned advertising into a commodity and you know, commodities compete on terms and price and this, there's not enough scale here. You could combine all the advertising agencies into one mega advertising agency and you still wouldn't have the scale necessary, you know, to play the game that, that Ariel's describing. So one of my points of view is if you treat it like a commodity and are savvy about that, you can be successful. There's plenty of companies in the world that trade commodities and make a lot of money, but their eyes are wide open that they're trading in the commodity space.
- [27:10]
Host
Interesting perspective. We talked about some innovation, we talked about integrations, we talked about some data and identity solutions. How does this play a role in global reach and local expertise? I mean both companies have global presence. Does this benefit the clients? With better local market knowledge being able to address their clients needs for market specific targeting and campaigns, do you feel that that would play a positive role in the way that they're managing their clients moving forward?
- [27:44]
Ariel Garcia
I would just kind of echo what I alluded to before. It's certainly if that were one of the primary drivers for this, they would have said that it was right. We're not hearing anything, to be honest with you. We're not hearing anything about clients for the most part apart from the data acquisition Daz hands where we're pretending third parties, first party, that's the only appreciable benefit we're hearing about from the perspective of their clients. I don't necessarily think like each of these networks has an international presence. I'm sure that they each have strengths and weaknesses in different markets. So it's kind of status quo from my perspective. From that standpoint. On the data piece, I would say just last week I think I saw the Canesso digital responsibility head at an IAPP panel in Europe talking about the importance of sustaining legitimate interest which is been on borrowed time since 2018. So I don't think, I think if like if the data benefits internationally are what are being banked on that is still on the same borrowed time it was on since 2018.
- [28:56]
Host
What do you feel? Maybe I'll point this towards, towards Mike. Connected television is ramping up quickly. It continues to grow. I just saw, I just posted something the other day that showed that you know, linear is, you know, 6x the impact on their ads than connected television. It was an emarketer report. Do you feel that this size of a merger will help accelerate the growth of connected television? Is this kind of being hailed as, you know, the old linear days or maybe becoming less prevalent? So is the old agency hold co model and the only way to really progress is to progress and adapt to changing times.
- [29:39]
Mike Evans
You know, I only know what I know, but I, from what I hear as far as kind of future state of the holding companies and of the structure, I feel like there has been a lot of work done in order to kind of achieve an integrated team, if you will. So it's not these like siloed departments still kind of planning for the most part. And the reason I kind of go there is focused on just different departments doing different things and not kind of speaking to each other ultimately to come up with like a holistic plan if you will. And so like I think we've seen a lot of growth in connected TV for a wide variety of reasons. But if you look at the agencies, I think that it's hopefully there's no, no longer this kind of like church and state of who's controlling what budgets. And it's more like an omnichannel approach. So it doesn't feel perhaps as territorial as it historically had. And so I think that you know, the, the, the ramp of CTV is, is certainly very prevalent and has been for a long time and will continue to be. But, but maybe there's an overarching kind of, I don't know, maybe there's something overarching that happens here at the end of the day where one, maybe you know, both of the, the holding companies coming together, there's more progression on, on kind of how these different channels are looked at, how they're planned together, how they're optimized together. That, that ultimately leads to a better outcome for us in, in general to kind of break down some of the barriers that have been occurring for a long, long time within the agency world.
- [31:14]
Host
I mean I look at it from both sides. One is, you know, financial aspect, right? One is bleeding, one is not. That's good. They can reinvest the first party data or whether it's you know, not first party data is another one. What do we do with that and how does that improve, you know, clients performance? But I do feel that there could be some positive impact, but not necessarily for the whole coast. Like I do feel that this may spark growth in kind of the boutique agency models because as Ariel had mentioned, you know, what does this mean when you only have a hundred million dollar budget or a $500 million budget or a billion dollar budget? Some of these guys are spending that a month and they have massive ad budgets to spend. They're most likely going to be prioritized but the smaller and mid tail clients are going to look for top notch service and return on their, on their ad spend. And I'm curious whether this really rises into some sort of new agency models that start to take over and focus on the growing channels like connect TV or digital, but then also understand kind of the traditional models of, you know, print and outdoor, et cetera. So I'm hoping there's some positive to all this.
- [32:25]
Mike Evans
I agree. I mean listen, this is going to take time as we know. But I guess my question in all of this is as, as these things come together and you have a much larger organization at the end of the day, does it lead to more nimbleness and the ability to make decisions and decisions quickly and kind of better outcomes for clients because you're at the forefront of innovation and providing really unique bespoke solutions to your customer base? That's my question when all this goes down is really some of the smaller agencies have been extremely nimble and very willing to test and test quickly and try new offerings. And it's been wonderful to work with the small to mid sized agencies. I think that they're doing wonderful things. And so I kind of go back to with a larger organization as these things come together over time, does this lead to slower decision making or quicker decision making with partners like Magnite for example?
- [33:30]
Host
You bring a good point. I think I just looked at it now while you're talking. Omnicom employs 75,900 people. Omnicom and Inter Public Group will employ 133,000 employees. I could probably tell you decision making will not be fast. Maybe on the investment side like on the investment side, like they negotiate these incredible investments, they get fantastic rates with their partners because they're pushing billions of dollars and they're able to get that incentivized. But for any nimble reaction to the market or new anything I could tell you that's going to go through layers and layers and layers of leadership.
- [34:09]
Mike Evans
And listen, maybe that creates a lot of opportunity for what you're alluding to.
- [34:14]
Host
I think it will. I think it will. I mean that's my. When I saw this, I said, you know, you've got three or four big players now. This is going to create a nice middle level of agencies that can manage some of these smaller brands. That's how I look at it. I didn't think that this was bad for small and mid size.
- [34:32]
Bernard Urban
I think that's a good take. And when you see that obviously there's going to be talent leaving Right. And that talent's going to go somewhere. Not everyone's going to end up in crypto and real estate. So, you know, those people are going to stay in the business and Mike's laughing. Those people are going to stay in the business. Those people are going to start agencies. Those people are going to go to, to small agencies and make them mid sized. They're going to go to mid size agencies and make them large. There is a circle of life here and it's a good time to be maybe in the middle.
- [35:01]
Host
Right now they say the best time to start a business is when you're, when you're no longer working and you are innovating and building. So I think that we're going to see some negative impact to some of the employees and some of the, you know, ambitious ones that have seen the good and the bad of working at a large company. I think we'll get creative and start sparking up their own solutions and how to manage clients. That's, that's how I feel. Awesome. Well, that, that brings us to the end of this, this episode. I really appreciate you all. Mike Evans from Magnite. Ariel Garcia, thank you again from Check my ads. I really appreciate you being here. And of course, Bernard, thank you so much for being here. On behalf of Branded Content strategic investments, thank you all.
- [35:41]
Mike Evans
Thank you so much.