The Media Leader Podcast

In a new mini-series, former Media Leader editor-in-chief Omar Oakes is joined by former Dentsu International CEO, now AI strategist Hamish Nicklin to argue over the nuances of AI development and its use in the creative industries.
In episode three, the duo debate for and against the prompt: “AI means you don't need human creativity in ads anymore. You come to a media owner or platform, you tell them your objective, connect your bank account, and everything is done for you."
Taking the “for” side of the argument is Nicklin, while Oakes represents the “against” side, posing sceptical questions.
The argument derives from a claim by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made last May that Meta (and platforms like it) will be able to automate the entire planning, buying, and creative process on behalf of advertisers.
As Zuckerberg described, this would be made possible by leveraging the data from billions of ad campaigns across its platforms, including what worked, what didn't, what audiences to target and with what creative.
Just hype, or a reality the advertising industry will need to reckon with sooner rather than later?
Highlights:
00:35: Recent developments in AI: Meta's "Claudenomics" rankings, Anthropic's Mythos
7:08: The technological case for Zuckerberg's argument. Do you just need a bank account, some brand assets, and a partner platform to make an effective ad campaign?
16:11: Is targeting more important than the big idea? Does creative still matter at the bottom of the funnel? What about brand building?
26:56: Unintended consequences: declining trust, impact on production businesses, K-shaped job market
35:47: Is it "intellectual snobbery" to avoid using AI and complain about AI content? Or is the creative process the point?
47:14: An experiment, reversion to the mean, and the power of prompting
52:09: Verdicts

In March, Meta and Google were found by a Los Angeles jury to have deliberately designed their platforms to be addictive in a way that was demonstrably harmful to a 20-year-old woman known as Kaley.
TikTok and Snap were also previously defendants in the case before agreeing to a settlement ahead of trial. Meta and Google intend to appeal the decision.
The news occurred as political leaders around the world, including here in the UK, have implemented or are considering implementing a ban on social media access for those under the age of 16.
It also came after Meta lost a separate trial that found the tech giant misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabled harm, including child sexual exploitation. Meta has further come under scrutiny for admitting to earning billions in revenue from fraudulent ads.
This confluence of events has led to a slow-motion reckoning for the advertising industry, which is responsible for providing ever-growing revenue to these Big Tech companies even as they are found by juries to be intentionally addicting users, leading to real world harms.
Amid the public furore and continued legal backlash, how should business leaders in media and advertising react?
Jess Butcher is the founder of ScrollAware, a not-for-profit aiming to convene business leaders to raise awareness of, and solutions to, online harms.
Butcher, a former tech entrepreneur, sits down with host Jack Benjamin to consider the business community's response to the social media addiction trial verdict.
Highlights:
9:27: The online safety debate: The harms of “ultraprocessed content” versus concerns of moral panic
22:35: ScrollAware’s mission as a “convenor of conversation” about responsibility in the attention economy.
28:44: Why brand managers feel “powerless” in challenging tech platforms – and why they shouldn’t
37:00: The collective action problem in the long tail
41:17: Policy changes to be considered
Related articles:
‘Are we monetising addiction?’ Ad industry faces reckoning following social media addiction lawsuit verdict
Government plans new powers to tackle online harms: ‘No platform gets a free pass’
Meta admits revenue from fraud and scam ads ‘might’ have accounted for 3-4% of total revenue
Social media platforms linked to human trafficking, UN report finds
Isba welcomes Government consultation on online harms: ‘Our hope is that enforcement will mean that more is done’

In a new mini-series, former Media Leader editor-in-chief Omar Oakes is joined by former Dentsu International CEO, now AI strategist Hamish Nicklin to argue over the nuances of AI development and its use in the creative industries.
In episode two, the duo debate for and against the prompt: “No human will touch a media plan within five years.”
Taking the “for” side of the argument is Nicklin, while Oakes represents the “against” side, posing sceptical questions.
The topic is inspired from comments made by Brian Lesser, the CEO of WPP Media, to staff in March 2025, in which he indicated that, within the next four or five years, there will “probably” be plans that “leave the building” that no planner ever saw.
Some staff, particularly planners, took that to mean their jobs could be at risk. UK CEO Kate Rowlinson later insisted to The Media Leader that Lesser “certainly didn’t say [media] plans wouldn’t be overseen by humans”.
Is it possible for media planning to be fully automated? What would that mean for agencies? Nicklin and Oakes discuss.
Highlights:
00:46: Recent developments in AI: Novels written by AI, using ChatGPT to treat a dog's cancer
6:38: Why AI can dominate media planning and execution: the knowledge base is codified and agent-to-agent transactions are already happening
16:34: What about non-digital planning? What about the need for creativity?
21:43: If you can automate planning, why do you need an agency at all?
24:39: The big pitfalls: insights, relationships
33:17: Brand safety and accountability
40:45: Second-order effects: Role restructuring, retraining, changes to senior management, personal credit
50:38: Verdicts

One question that we’ve returned to time and again on this podcast and in our coverage, as media practitioners return to time and again themselves, is how to appeal to young people.
Young people who are often hard to reach. They overindex on low-attention social media platforms and, while they generally express a greater openness to and trust of advertising, also worry over how their media diets are shaping their still-forming brains.
One company that has made it its business to reach this exact demographic is LadBible. Founded in 2012 as one of the first scaled social publishing businesses, Ladbible operates channels including Unilad, Gamingbible, Sportbible, Tyla, and, more recently BetchesMedia, which it acquired last year.
Apart from producing editorial content for young people, the company drives revenue through working with brands to develop creative for commercial campaigns.
LA Ronayne is the executive creative director at LadBible.
As other more traditional publishers have increasingly invested in a social publishing arms race, Ronayne sat down with host Jack Benjamin to discuss her team's workflow, what sets social campaigns apart, and best practices for speaking to Gen Z and Gen Alpha.
Highlights:
4:11: The creative process for branded social content: from brief to output
9:02: Working with different social platforms: tracking algorithm changes, stopping thumbs
15:16: Latching onto short-term trends versus long-term culture
20:00: Trust and measuring success
23:06: Where LadBible sees itself in a crowded social publishing market
26:57: What does Gen Z want?
Related articles:
‘Misaligned expectations’ between brands and influencers hamper creator economy
Over two-fifths of influencer ads fail to meet ASA disclosure standards
‘Social as a destination itself’: Inside Mail Metro Media’s two new social publishers
Journalism and creator economy ‘converge’ at The Independent
Can brands become influencers? With Jungle Creations’ Melissa Chapman

In a new mini-series, former Media Leader editor-in-chief Omar Oakes is joined by former Dentsu International CEO, now AI strategist Hamish Nicklin to argue over the nuances of AI development and its use in the creative industries.
In the first episode, the duo debate for and against the prompt: "AI will replace most white collar jobs, and faster than anyone thinks."
Taking the "for" side of the argument is Nicklin, while Oakes represents the "against" side, posing sceptical questions.
The topic comes as ex-Twitter founder, now Block CEO Jack Dorsey recently stated: "The core thesis is simple: intelligence tools have changed what it means to build and run a company. We're already seeing it internally. A significantly smaller team, using the tools we're building, can do more and do it better, and intelligence tool capabilities are compounding faster every week."
He added: "Within the next year, I believe the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion and make similar structural changes."
Likely? Or just hype?
Highlights:
1:13: Recent developments in AI use: Gaming, data centre scaling, the Grammarly scandal
5:30: Jack Dorsey claims AI will replace entry-level white collar work. Nicklin shares why he might be right.
18:46: The 'coordination tax': Is AI replacing unproductive work, or valuable process?
31:33: The pipeline problem: How does junior talent turn into senior talent?
36:44: Agency business models need to change
38:37: Is AI a cover story for cutting head count?
40:57: Verdicts