Global Mergers, Local Ripples: Consolidations reshape India's ad land as clients seek 'single-window' partners

We will continue acquisition-led strategy in India: Havas Chairman and CEO Yannick Bolloré

Consolidation or Collision? How ad land’s mergers create crisis of overlapping of leadership roles

Meta’s policy shift could spark 30% surge in RMG ad spending in India

Digital Entertainment Summit 2025 to debut in Delhi as India stakes its claim on the future of global media

Nobody’s Perfect Retro Porsche Ad

In Conversation With Raja Rajamannar, Mastercard

Shahid Kapoor And Varun Ganjoo Speaks On PokerBaazi's Campaign

In conversation with IHCL’s Puneet Chhatwal & GroupM’s Kate Scott-Dawkins

Why are brands including e-sports in their sports marketing itinerary?

Storyboard18 x The English Nut: How to pronounce these 10 brand names

Experts' Take On Reinvention Of Ad Campaigns Through Technology

Experts Speak On Key Emerging Trends In Cannes Lions Entries

Leaders of the future have to be outstanding human beings: Nestle MD

In conversation with VMLY&R’s Hari Ramanathan

Can PDCA improve creativity?


PDCA stands for Plan–Do–Check–Act, a four-step management method used for continuous improvement of processes and products.


The parts are distinct and in a continuum :


1. Plan – Identify a problem or opportunity and devise a plan for improvement.


2. Do – Implement the plan on a small scale to test its effectiveness.


3. Check – Monitor and evaluate the results against expected outcomes.


4. ⁠Act – If successful, implement on a larger scale. If not, revise and repeat the cycle.


It’s widely used in quality management, lean manufacturing, and business process improvement.


But is the PDCA method suited for a world of flux, disruption and universal lowering of entry barriers?


I posit that there are several issues with it. 


First it crawls. Simply too slow for fast-paced environments. The cycle emphasises gradual improvement, which may not keep up with industries needing rapid innovation. 


Second, it is mindlessly linear and unimaginative. Real-world problems are often complex and non-linear. PDCA assumes a neat cycle, which may not reflect messy realities. Logic can’t create magic. 


Third, often the issues are about weak execution and the lack of ‘doing’ in the ‘Do’ phase. You may plan and check thoroughly but fail to implement effectively due to lack of resources or commitment.


Lastly, thinking in incremental terms means filtering out breakthrough innovation. It works best for known, repeatable processes. For ambiguous or chaotic issues, more adaptive methods like agile or design thinking are better. 


Creativity needs more than Sudoku heuristics. 


There are numerous real-world examples where the PDCA cycle struggled or was ineffective, especially in business and manufacturing:


General Motors invested in this way in the 1990s to compete with Japanese automakers. Predictably it got bogged down in corporate bureaucracy. By the time changes were implemented, customer needs had already shifted. GM continued losing market share.


I have written about how Kodak’s failure was more than responding alertly to digital imagery. It was about the internal methods and motivation. Kodak used PDCA to improve film products and internal processes. They missed the disruptive shift in consumer behavior and digital technology. Kodak declared bankruptcy in 2012, as more adaptive companies moved quickly using more iterative, customer-focused strategies.


The Boeing 787 Dreamliner project used PDCA to manage global outsourcing. The ‘plan’ didn’t plan for coordination complexity. The outsourcing failed due to quality and supply delays. It ended in huge delays and massive cost overruns.


PDCA works best in stable, repeatable environments, like routine quality control. But in disruptive, fast-moving, or highly innovative fields, it can fall behind.


It often becomes Purely Delusional Convenient Actions. 
 

When you are creating, the answers emerge from imagination and an inherent urge. 


Teresa Amabile is a distinguished American professor and researcher best known for her groundbreaking work in the field of creativity, motivation, and organizational behavior. 


She is a Professor Emerita at Harvard Business School, where her research focused on how everyday life inside organizations can influence creativity and productivity. Her work bridges psychology and business, making her one of the foremost authorities on how creativity is fostered or hindered in work environments.


Amabile’s studies show that work environments that foster autonomy, encourage risk-taking, and reduce unnecessary constraints can significantly enhance creativity.


Conversely, authoritarian diktats, strict performance evaluations, excessive time pressure, micro-management, and lack of support for risk-taking can diminish creativity. 


Creativity depends on the environment more than the individual. 


The key to creativity is not intelligence or technical skills alone, but motivation and environment.


Creativity is a rare thing. You are lucky if you grow it. You are unlucky if you throw it and you are idiotic if you blow it .


Shubhranshu Singh is vice president, marketing - domestic & IB, CVBU, Tata Motors. He writes Simply Speaking, a weekly column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-marketing/simply-speaking-shorts-6-the-er-positioning-logic-loses-to-magic-57486.htm">Simply Speaking Shorts #6: The “—er positioning” - Logic loses to Magic</a>

Simply Speaking Shorts #7: Process over imagination?

The consolidation of the internet by a few tech giants has been the biggest development of the new millennium. The online world was once a vast, unclaimed frontier. Now, it resembles a vast suburban area of neat gated communities.


These technology giants are each shaping human behaviour on a planetary scale. The bigger they get, the more relentless they are in achieving and retaining attention. Let’s call this group by a name - GoMeZonTok.


Officially , algorithmic curation by GoMeZonTok - be it content, search results, shopping lists, short videos etc - was intended to drive meaningful reach and provide a better customer experience. Instead, in each case, the servant algorithm has become the platform’s master.


Google was the first to redefine the scale of what was possible. By mastering search, it didn’t just become a tool — it became the verb itself. "Google it" replaced "search for it." That vice like grip on human curiosity soon expanded with YouTube - both platforms together handling over 90 percent of global search queries. Today, Google processes a staggering 8.5 billion searches every single day.


Meta built a universe around social connection. Facebook led the surge, stitching communities together and eventually connecting nearly half of humanity. Not happy with just that, Meta expanded its turf in a classical ‘buy or bury’ manoeuvre — acquiring WhatsApp to dominate conversation, and Instagram to capture the explosion of image and video sharing.


Today, Facebook alone has over 3.05 billion monthly active users — that’s almost 40 percent of the world's population logging in, scrolling and engaging.


TikTok entered the stage from a blind spot - the only non American major in the mix and redefined entertainment for a new generation. Short-form video became the new normal in youth culture. TikTok now commands almost 20 percent of global app usage time among the young, crossing 1.7 billion monthly active users — on course to hit 2 billion by 2025. It is the fastest-growing platform in history. Its preferred content method of purely force fed short form videos is now the preferred norm across all platforms.


Amazon, began as an online store and quietly and systematically, became ‘the everything store’ — controlling nearly 40 percent of U.S. online retail. E-commerce and quick commerce surged to a daily habit.


Yet, these titans don't just compete for revenue dollars — they also cannibalise each other in a Darwinian fight for the survival of the fittest. The mortal combat over attention is illustrative of the underlying connection.


Amazon muscled into Google and more than 60 percent of U.S. online product searches now start directly on Amazon, bypassing Google entirely.


TikTok took on Google especially on recommendations and discovery — where to eat, what to buy — 51 percent of Gen Z users now prefer TikTok over traditional Google Search. This ranges from apparel to fragrance, gadgets to sneakers. 


A recent report in the Economist stated that in 2023 two-thirds of Gen-Z Americans told Circana, a research firm, that TikTok had influenced their fragrance-buying habits more than any other platform. Beauty is by far the bestselling segment on TikTok Shop, the platform’s e-commerce feature. “Bottles that go viral on #PerfumeTok are quickly snatched off shelves.”


Meta is, in turn, taking back from TikTok with Reels (across Instagram and Facebook) now accounting for 50 percent of the time users spend inside Meta’s apps.


Google is benchmarking TikTok and YouTube Shorts have exploded to 70 billion daily views globally in 2024, trying to pull short-form supremacy back into Google’s corner.


Amazon is snatching ad revenues from Meta as the retail giant’s share of U.S. digital ad revenues rose to 14.9 percent in 2024 — up sharply from 11 percent in 2022 — even as Meta’s share showed signs of fatigue. This is a big ‘trade marketing’ ad revenue stream.


As can be seen, the digital ecosystem is not static. It’s a battleground of shifting loyalties and aggressive land-grab tactics, played out on search bars, social feeds, shopping carts, and endless video scrolls.


But the basis is exactly the same - attention is farmed, harvested, and sold - by the same few players, over and over again.


It has led to ‘monopoly’ of attention sold on rate card. Nothing wrong with that since this is precisely what legacy media was trying to do all along. In fact , a huge positive has been that barriers to publishing have been lowered by the emergence of the internet, low cost of handheld phones and copious data.


Every person with a smartphone is a publisher, content producer, influencer, and media agency rolled into one.


But not all that glitters is gold. The core issue is the scale and scope of the collective GoMeZonTok dominance. The modality for each of them is absolute surveillance . Whereas, the earliest era of the internet was more like a DIY, diffused collection of ‘static only’ webpages where novelty led to virality, with the emergence of the new social era of the 2000s, siloed feeds began to rule. First came Myspace, Friendster, etc. followed by Facebook and Twitter (now X). ‘Social networks’ quietly became ‘social media’.


The outcome is your disempowerment.


You are reduced to consuming passively. What you see and click is rarely your own choice. Vast networks of algorithms constantly mine your data, placing you into evolving cohorts and segments — ‘boxed to sell’ versions of yourself.


The truth is that your online self is not you. It is how you are made to be. The algorithm actually owns your network and your feed.

 
The algorithm is shrewd, but not sentient. It doesn't think — it only measures.


It tracks exactly where your attention lingers: where you scroll, where you stop, where you click, where you spend more time, and where you feed your current curiosity. Then, it simply gives you more of the same, tightening the loop.


On top of this, with AI, we may see a dramatic new hyper-consolidation or a revolutionary disruption of the way in which the online world works.


To marketers, this should be a flashing, wailing siren. Nothing is more important to brand building than access to media. In a world where everything is pre-sorted to appeal to customers they won’t see much outside their algorithmically defined silos of preference.


Even my article will come to you as a post because an unknown algorithm will decide it fits your profile, is current to your interests, and is what you ‘ought to see’.


Due to the pressures of social media and the self-reinforcing biases of recommendation algorithms that drive streaming, culture is becoming more similar than different.


Culture is "the collective customs ideas, beliefs, and achievements of a people." Today, we are being handed a monoculture with artifacts, characters, voices, and stories that our specific demographic finds recognizable and relatable. Monolithic because it’s smoothed over into sameness, and hence, also a monotonous culture.


Do you wonder why, despite the plethora of choice, most of us are enjoying more of the same songs, movies, and TV shows?


Ideas, themes, stories that can be cut, pulped and puréed are easiest to monetize. This is because what you know is what you are likely to keep consuming—hence the overwhelming popularity of sequels.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-marketing/simply-speaking-shorts-6-the-er-positioning-logic-loses-to-magic-57486.htm">Simply Speaking Shorts #6: The “—er positioning” - Logic loses to Magic</a> 

 
The streaming platform and its various signature franchises form a walled garden where there is no cross-pollination. A classic example is music. The homogenization of music is caused by data - a consequence of the fact that streaming, radio, and record companies can access more information about their listeners than ever, faster than ever.


There is nothing wrong with chasing a larger, segmented audience to make more money. But the difference is how fast the iterative loop happens, and how interlinked and pervasive the control mechanisms are, in reality.


If culture is created by an algo — it’ll be basis popularity, engagement, scale and speed. Yet everything popular is not profound and what is profound is not necessarily popular.


The data that decides your feed is shaped by proprietary algorithms, black boxes, not transparent and precise evaluations of human taste. This monetisation of attention and pre-sorted decision on a drip feed is AI-enabled as well.


With ‘Agentic AI’, whichever human is in the loop may be further cut off and this monoculture is set to become larger in scale.


Culture is now a small outcome of Big Data on a planet of 8 billion humans and 4+ billion smartphones.


When culture is made robotic, we have only a choice between the bad and worse. We will be limited to consuming things that are fully engineered to attract our attention and monetized into profits.


So many parts to delightful culture : newness, rebellion, disruption, and serendipity can never be provided via algorithmic outcomes.


Culturally, what we least expect can impact us the most. But, engineered recommendations can only lead us down a path of sameness.


We have to consciously break bounds and attract diversity, emotional challenges, abstraction, and even contradiction to make sure our minds don’t atrophy.


Frictionless consumption pushed by automated feeds is easily manipulated.


Anything that is a ‘hit’ is copied, scaled and repeated until they become wallpaper. Familiarity is comforting only for the mentally tired.


Algorithmic feed is not fundamentally or inherently bad. I think it can help us a lot. But its intent and its application have diverged. Instead of the new, the refreshing, and the contrarian—what we are shown is more replication of what we already consumed.


A human gatekeeper, can highlight a new voice, bring up something that’s totally unusual as an act of conviction or an embrace of risk. An algo never does that . The algo only values scale.


David Ogilvy said the best ideas come as jokes. The algos definitely lack a sense of humour. Let’s not lose ours.


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/digital/a-watershed-judgment-google-illegally-monopolised-adtech-says-us-judge-62617.htm">A watershed judgment: Google illegally monopolised adtech, says US judge</a>

GoMeZonTok: The tracking of our attention and how it is creating a new culture

Google’s business practices, have been a matter of litigation for a few years, particularly concerning antitrust issues. 


Leonie Brinkema, the US Federal judge presiding over the case in Virginia has now ruled that Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising. This is an antitrust judgement. It could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.


The judgement- which will surely go into appeal - rules that Google wilfully monopolised the digital advertising market both in terms of the technology used by online publishers to sell ad space, as well as the exchange on which ads are bid for by businesses.


The US Department of Justice however failed to prove that Google unfairly dominated the advertiser ad networks.


This is a watershed judgement.


The argument is that Google’s dominance in the search engine market—holding over 90 percent market share—is maintained not solely through superior products but through strategic agreements that suppress competition. It is a matter of business practice that Google pays substantial sums to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine remains the default on their devices. 


It is argued that such arrangements harm the competitive process, leading to reduced innovation and potentially compromising user privacy. The position on antitrust enforcement has not only been focused on consumer prices but also considered the broader implications of market dominance on democracy and economic equality. 


To address these concerns, structural remedies such as breaking up parts of Google’s business, including separating its search engine from other services like Chrome and Android, have been demanded to restore competitive balance in the tech industry. 


Google’s near monopoly in search is now extending into AI development. Since search engines generate massive datasets and revenue, Google uses this power to fund and train large-scale AI models, reinforcing its dominance. The argument is that if one company controls both the gateway to information and the AI tools that interpret it, it becomes a bottleneck for innovation, competition, and democratic access to knowledge.


Inherently, monopolies tend to suppress innovation because they don’t face pressure to improve. In AI, this could mean fewer alternative AI models, repression of interoperability and commercially motivated control over how information is filtered or personalized resulting in AI tools that reflect corporate biases, limit choice, and reduce transparency.


The proposed antitrust remedies, are many such as breaking up Google’s search, ad, and browser businesses, regulations on exclusive default deals and enforcing data-sharing standards to give startups a fair chance in AI.


AI built by monopolies could lead to a triple weight of data concentration, algorithmic curation and limited accountability. 


However, to be fair, one has to see the change in context in a digital economy as compared to the earlier era in which anti-trust first emerged in the United States of America. 


Today’s tech giants like Meta, Amazon, Google cannot be compared with early 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel when Louis Brandeis, a key figure in early antitrust thinking, warned that ‘big’ in itself was a danger. After all, in the digital domain, ‘scale’ is a natural quality , even a prerequisite.


The large body of work by the most storied Chicago School economists like Robert Bork, has argued that where monopolist excess is concerned, only consumer prices matter. The central principle is that antitrust laws should focus solely on consumer welfare, primarily measured by prices and output. If a company’s practices lead to lower prices or greater efficiency, even if they reduce competition, they are considered acceptable. Large firms often achieve their size through superior efficiency, not anticompetitive behavior.


It is also true that government regulation of market structure is often misguided, inefficient, and prone to populist abuse. Markets, tend to self-correct over time. Market dynamic humbles the mighty. 


The digital world has seen the emergence of never before scale and wealth, but also disruption via innovation and new modalities. Because of the accelerated timelines, it is difficult to judge if this is monopolisation by intent. 


Nevertheless, even in anticipation of outcomes, this case will change the world in many ways for marketers in digital advertising, search engine optimization (SEO), and data access. 


In the new landscape, brands could get more visibility, better pricing, and fairer competition. 


Google collects and uses vast amounts of user data across platforms - Chrome, Search, Android, Gmail, etc. 


A ruling could limit Google’s ability to combine cross-platform data, especially without explicit user consent. Therefore, targeting might become less precise and a return to First-party data may get more important. Marketers need to shift focus to consent-based data strategies and contextual advertising.


Google decides which links appear in search results and often features its own services above competitors. 


If regulators force Google to stop prioritizing its own products, organic search may become more competitive with greater ROI from SEO investment, not just ads.


The ask is to adapt strategies quickly, diversify ad spend, and become more creative with data, targeting, and content.


How? Google it.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/special-coverage/go-google-or-google-gone-fate-of-search-business-in-judges-hands-shubhranshu-singhs-simply-speaking-32074.htm">Go Google or Google Gone? Fate of search business in judge’s hands: Shubhranshu Singh's 'Simply Speaking'</a> 


Shubhranshu Singh, columnist and marketing top voice writes on brand building, technology and the consumer world

A watershed judgment: Google illegally monopolised adtech, says US judge

When your products, service or reason to be are just like another brand ’s except cheap-er , small-er, bigg-er, thinn-er, sharp-er, light-er, fast-er, or even bett-er.'


Denise Lee Yohn called it the “-er position” and it is an inferior place to be. 


Not only does it relegate your brand to subordinate status, you are bound to use another brand as your reference point.


Your brand possesses only comparative value, rather than having its own inherent value. 


Your value proposition becomes “just as good as Brand X, but ___-er.” 


Joel Raphaelson (who died 92 years of age in 2021) was a young copywriter, in 1950 in Chicago, who told David Ogilvy something most insightful. 


He said: “I don’t think a consumer chooses brand B over brand A because they think brand B is better. I think they choose brand B because they are more certain it’s pretty good.”


Great brands don't operate in a reactive mode, waiting to jump on the next bandwagon. 


They are bold and confident. 


They create a consumer mindset.


They create cultural reference points. 


They identify powerful ideas on the horizon and discover ways to advance them.


They lead and create industries instead of a reactive approach chasing transitory trends. 


Lead rather than one more in a crowded field of —— er brands.


The fact is that the “-er” product or service doesn’t win unless the perceived value is ‘- er’ too. 


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/brand-marketing/simply-speaking-shorts-5-the-bane-of-biases-46578.htm">Simply Speaking: Shorts #5 - The bane of biases</a> 


Branding, and associations create predispositions. Why do people drink Tequila shots and not say, whiskey shots? Why has this become ritualised? Because it’s somewhat of a party high point perception. 


Luxury watches like Rolex don’t sell better timekeeping—they sell status and identity. The social signaling is more relevant than the underlying product.


It’s a fallacy that only big, expensive changes drive growth. More often the small, psychological tweaks can have outsized effects. In this world Rs 1499/-is not a rupee less than 1500/- but in a different mental orbit. 


Think not logic but magic, creativity, and unpredictability. Techy in marketing can be a tool,catalyst, accelerator or platform.
But human beings will ALWAYS be emotional, irrational, unpredictable.


That's why marketing can never be reduced to a Newtonian science.


People use an ATM machine in exactly the same way in Tokyo, Oslo or Mumbai, but the relationship, the Japanese, Norwegians or Indians have with money is very different.


In many developed, affluent markets, offering people a small , unexpected gift (rather than just a discount) can be a more effective incentive, even if it’s worth less monetarily.


The texture, tone and quality of human interaction matters. That’s why Apple stores offer a premium physical shopping experience, even though people could buy online.


I have seen this in my work at Diageo, Lakme and Royal Enfield. The ‘where and how' of retail interaction makes all the difference.


Luxury is a refuge. Those who can afford it actually want the “reassuringly expensive” — higher prices can increase demand.


People buy emotionally and then look for data, logic, and efficiency, to justify their choices.


Successful marketing isn’t about optimizing efficiency but about understanding human perception, emotion, and irrationality.


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/digital/simply-speaking-shorts-3-success-fluke-or-formula-44014.htm">Simply Speaking: Shorts #3 - Success - fluke or formula?</a>

Simply Speaking Shorts #6: The “—er positioning” - Logic loses to Magic

In the year 2025, several technological advancements are poised to accelerate and influence our daily lives. Scale has been achieved such that commercial joy will meet technical advancement virtuously. 

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration: even as large language models in AI become deeply embedded across various sectors, enhancing efficiency and decision-making, ‘Agentic AI’ systems will bring a never before tech-human interaction. For the first time, initiative will move from man to machine. Designed to act with autonomy, they will pursue specific goals based on contextual understanding. Thereby, the “agency” to perform tasks, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances will cease to be the preserve of humankind. It brings up ethical concerns about control, accountability, and alignment with human values. We are unlikely to see a ‘killer app’ for ‘all things AI’ but instead likely to have ‘AI in all things’ instead. 

2. Quantum Computing: This will revolutionize data processing capabilities, enabling complex problem-solving beyond the reach of traditional computers. The chip world is in ferment and established players are getting wiped out by new winners as Nvidia. It is a race between the United States and China in establishing domain supremacy. 

3. Sustainable Technology: Advancements in renewable energy solutions and sustainable manufacturing practices will be commercialised globally. Whatever the politics of it, the consumer sensibility around this is now sharper than ever before and private sector commitments will remain in place. 

4. Extended Reality (XR): The convergence of augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) will create immersive experiences in entertainment, education, and professional training. 

5. 6G Networks: This will facilitate advancements in IoT and real-time communication. Network sophistication is hygiene. 

6. Robotics and Automation: Powered by AI,more autonomous and adaptable machines will prevail in manufacturing, healthcare, and logistics. This is seen at both ends of the spectrum from nano and micro devices to gigantic industrial scale automation. 

7. Blockchain and Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Blockchain technology will continue as a disruptive challenger to traditional financial systems, promoting transparency and reducing reliance on intermediaries. Anybody who wrote its obituary prematurely should now plan a baby shower all over again. 

8. Neurological Enhancement Technologies: As Western population ages, the developed world is deeply invested in longevity and ensuring an independent existence for older persons. Innovations aimed at enhancing human cognitive functions through technology are emerging. 

9. Influential Influencers: The rise of influencers has revolutionized the way people consume content, interact with brands, and form opinions. Fueled by the globally widespread adoption of social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, influencers have become powerful voices in shaping trends and driving consumer behavior. These individuals, often relatable and authentic, build loyal audiences by sharing curated aspects of their lives, expertise, or entertainment. Brands increasingly partner with influencers to reach niche markets, leveraging their trust-based relationships with followers to promote products and services. This shift from traditional celebrity endorsements to influencer-driven marketing underscores the growing importance of digital presence in the modern economy, highlighting the impact of everyday creators on global culture and commerce. 

These trends indicate a transformative period ahead, with technology being an enhancer, disruptor and destroyer. As a marketer - in my assessment - the most significant acceleration is the rise and rise of the “creator-influencer” population. 

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are the two most successful and well known people on the planet today and both are significant media influencers revealing how the power shift has occurred. Musk’s posts are often cryptic, humorous, or provocative, mixing personal thoughts, memes, and major announcements. His tweets can move markets and he uses social media to directly engage with followers and customers, bypassing traditional PR strategies. 

Donald Trump’s biggest venture on the road to winning the Presidency was ‘Truth Social’ for enabling his direct communication. He drives entire news cycles and sets public discourse. His ability to mobilize supporters through social media is a hallmark of his political strategy. The internet as a creative studio is inefficiently democratic, chaotic, and unequal. 

However, Social media is brutally efficient as an ecosystem and a distribution channel. Millions compete for attention, a happy few go big, and a microscopic minority get fantastically rich. Then too, success is short lived. 

Social media in an era of AI

The era of social media is accelerating into an era of AI enabled content. Everyone is a walking studio. Everyone has a shot at being a star. Over the past five years American companies have roughly tripled the amount of marketing spend they lavish annually on influencers, to $7bn, according to eMarketer, a research firm. 

Goldman Sachs estimates that as of last year there were more than 50 million influencers globally, from fashionistas on Instagram and comedians on Tiklok to gamers on YouTube. This tribe is growing by around 20% annually. Fully 57% of Gen Zs in America would like to be a social-media influencer, according to Morning Consult, a pollster; 53% describe it as a "reputable career choice". 

Brands have shifted their attention towards influencers creating content for narrower audiences, to better target those consumers - fashion tips for the older people, career advise for mid careerists, health and wellness for gen Z, etc. 

The influencer industry as it exists today is a complex and far-reaching ‘informational-commercial-personal’ communication apparatus whose incentive system is sub optimal. As the influencer industry has developed, there has been an overarching trend of power shifting away from individuals and individual ownership and toward social media companies, as well as toward companies offering various technologies of self-commercialization. 



<blockquote>Every influencer is a creator but every creator is not an influencer.</blockquote>



Perhaps the most significant factor in social media companies’ ability to accumulate power was industry stakeholders’ desire to maximize efficiency and minimize risk: individual participants, particularly influencers, wanted to gain income and visibility; brands wanted consistency and predictability in content; and marketers sought to make these processes efficient and profitable. This macroshift in power toward media and technology companies is a one way traffic. 

The drive toward data-driven identification of smaller and smaller subsets of influencers, led to a growing chasm between “classes” of influencers—between those who could be paid handsomely for their work of promotion and persuasion and those who were expected to work for free or for small gratification. 

Power has tilted so decidedly toward the influencer industry’s technological gatekeepers that it is their agendas that are most clearly observable in the industry’s continued evolution. A platform’s algorithmic decision is more important than influencer style, inspiration or content. The connection between signature content and platform is unprecedented. It is raising concerns and calls for regulation and legislation. 

While regulatory attention is being paid to the veracity of content and the imbalance of power between the major platform companies and those who attempt to compete with them, the gross imbalance of power and lack of transparency between platform companies and their users is not being investigated enough. 

Social media companies, brands, and influencers have increasingly adopted the term “creator” for the many forms of social media content producers thriving today, from bloggers, vloggers, livestreamers to Instagrammers and TikTok stars. But there is a key difference. 

“Influencer” is an earned label: a certain number of people have done something based on something you posted. Not everyone influences on these terms—but we can all “create”. 

Every influencer is a creator but every creator is not an influencer. This is something to watch in 2025.


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.


THE SUMMARY

Key Technological Trends:

- AI Integration is evolving toward "Agentic AI" systems that can act autonomously, shifting initiative from humans to machines. Rather than having a single dominant AI application, AI will be integrated into everything.

- Quantum Computing advances are creating upheaval in the chip industry, with companies like Nvidia emerging as new leaders amid US-China competition for dominance.

- Sustainable Technology is gaining momentum driven by consumer demand and private sector commitments.

- Extended Reality (XR) will create immersive experiences across entertainment, education, and training.

- 6G Networks and improved network infrastructure will become standard.

- Robotics and Automation, powered by AI, will expand across industries from nano-scale to industrial applications.

- Blockchain and DeFi continue to challenge traditional financial systems.

- Neurological Enhancement Technologies are emerging, particularly focused on aging populations in Western countries.

The Rise of Influencer Economy:

The growing importance of "creator-influencer" culture

- Over 50 million influencers globally, growing 20% annually

- U.S. companies have tripled marketing spend on influencers to $7 billion

- 57% of Gen Z Americans aspire to become social media influencers

- Examples like Elon Musk and Donald Trump demonstrate the power of direct social media influence

Key Industry Dynamics:

- Power Shift: The industry has seen power concentrate with social media companies and technology platforms rather than individual creators.

- Creator vs. Influencer Distinction: While all influencers are creators, not all creators are influencers. "Influencer" status is earned through demonstrated impact.

- Platform Control: Algorithmic decisions by platforms now outweigh individual creator style or content quality.

Challenges and Concerns:

- Growing power imbalance between platforms and users

- Need for increased regulatory attention to platform-user relationships

- Inequality in influencer compensation and opportunities

- Lack of transparency in platform operations

TECH 2025: Trends that will shape our lives as consumers in the year ahead

The bane of biases: I knew it and it happened because of what happened before it.


“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” and confirmation bias are two distinct yet interrelated cognitive errors that can lead to faulty reasoning.


‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ is a Latin phrase meaning ‘after this, therefore because of this.’


It’s a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.


This type of reasoning often leads to incorrect conclusions, mistaking correlation for causation based purely on sequence.


Confirmation Bias is the tendency to favour information that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs while disregarding or undervaluing information that challenges those beliefs. For instance, if someone believes that one brand of car is superior, they may focus on stories about that brand’s reliability while ignoring reports of issues, selectively interpreting information to fit their viewpoint.
 

The growth of social


Media bubbles is due to a combination of motivated consumption of content driven by confirmation bias and the algorithm’s ability to do this kind of content propagation presumptively and proactively.


These two biases can often work together and create a cycle of misinterpretation, where assumptions are reinforced without critical examination, ultimately leading to stronger but potentially inaccurate beliefs.


Recognizing these biases helps foster more objective, evidence-based decision-making.


The converse is an even worse situation which is ‘analysis paralysis’.


It can hinder effective marketing for several reasons:


When marketers spend excessive time analyzing data, it can lead to significant delays in launching campaigns or implementing changes. Marketing needs to be agile, especially in today’s fast-moving environment, and over-analysis can mean missed opportunities and lost relevance.


Losing focus on the big picture by diving too deep into minute details can make marketers lose sight of broader objectives and strategic goals. Over-analysis can shift focus toward optimizing small metrics that may not significantly impact the campaign’s effectiveness. Because you may imagine a causation, you end up dealing with inconsequential minutiae.


The cost of over-analysis can outweigh its benefits, draining resources that could be more effectively applied elsewhere in the marketing process.


There is a preference to “optimize” every detail based on minor data insights, leading to overly complex and micromanaged campaigns. This can result in losing the core message or diluting the brand’s voice, making the campaign confusing or less authentic.


Data-driven decisions are directionally essential, but over-reliance on data can stifle creativity and intuition—two critical elements in marketing.


Innovative campaigns often come from bold ideas rather than incremental optimizations, so data should complement, not replace, creativity.


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/digital/simply-speaking-shorts-3-success-fluke-or-formula-44014.htm">Simply Speaking: Shorts #3 - Success - fluke or formula ?</a> 


Analysis doesn’t always reveal or predict consumer behaviour. In fact, data alone can sometimes misrepresent or fail to capture the nuances of consumer behavior, especially when it’s overly segmented or based on short-term metrics.


Over-analysis can lead to campaigns that focus too narrowly on past patterns rather than adapting to real-time, unpredictable shifts in consumer preferences.


Great marketing often blends data insights with gut feeling and market experience. Over-analyzing can crowd out these instincts, resulting in decisions that lack the human touch or miss emotional connection points that data alone can’t predict.


Paralysis by too many choices makes for conflicting insights ultimately leading to indecision and inaction. Instead of making bold moves, workouts can end up in endless discussions and re-evaluations, ultimately stalling progress and reducing the impact of campaigns.


While data is an invaluable tool, effective marketing strikes a balance between data analysis and timely decision-making, creativity, and intuition. Avoiding over-analysis enables marketing teams to remain agile, respond to trends quickly, and maintain a strong, clear brand voice that resonates with audiences.


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.

Simply Speaking: Shorts #5 - The bane of biases

Fencing the ocean: How ego drives internet model decisions that destroy value


Dividers don’t get the digital world. 


Multipliers do.
 

Those who try to replicate offline department style turfs on the internet are idiots. 


Only dimwits will try to fence a part of an ocean. 


As we all know, a funnel is always broadest at the mouth and narrowest at the bottom. That is hardly a deduction of genius. 


Yet such idiots, their rallyists and their patrons will divide or redefine and route to market to create a petty walled garden. Incentivisation of buyers via discounts and channel payout may make this inherently flawed model seem like it is a success even as it is failing! 


Why is a broad cohort important? 


Broad recommendations reduce noise, steering us toward the good stuff. And they're comforting, too. An acknowledged best seller provides a safe, socially vetted bet. The larger the procession, the higher the perceived value of the destination. As a result, we march with the crowd toward the books, songs, restaurants, or gadgets that are top of the charts. As we do so, birds of a feather flock together.
 

Well, it helps to have friends. 
 

When a friend recommends a book, we are more likely to give it a chance. If we hear a new restaurant gave someone stomach cramps, we go elsewhere. If a colleague hates her laptop, we'll make sure to order the competing brand.


In a crowded field of offerings, we ask, we observe, we listen. 


The ‘offline plus online’ model works because the topology of the Web limits our ability to see everything out there. 


The World Wide Web is a scale-free network, dominated by hubs and nodes with a very large number of links. This large-scale topology coexists with numerous small-scale structures that severely limit how much we can explore simply by clicking our way along the links. 


The web (in terms of search ability) is vast yet small. The web (in terms of social connection ) is small yet vast. 


The searches we make are based on page ranking and linkages. These links are directed. 


Read More: <a href="https://www.storyboard18.com/digital/simply-speaking-shorts-3-success-fluke-or-formula-44014.htm">Simply Speaking: Shorts #3 - Success - fluke or formula ?</a> 


Seeing the references in a book will allow you to find the quoted papers. Yet none of these papers could send you to that book, since they do not cite it. 


The lion eats the deer and never the other way around… 


A hotel doesn’t advertise booking methods. A hotel doesn’t publicise standalone menu items. A hotel sells great hospitality or great value or huge convenience or some such larger value. 


Finding the larger value makes you explore the parts. Not the other way around. 


The idiots who make small, independent, fenced models of internet based customer acquisition and sales simply don’t get that. 


They are desperate wallets walking around to buy respect and burn good money in a bonfire of vanity.


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.

Simply Speaking: Shorts #4 - Fencing the Ocean?

The formula for success :Everyone knows of it but no one knows it. 


What makes fashions, rise and fall ? 


Why do some product introductions take off and become grand successes while others - which are equally qualified to succeed - fail miserably ? 


Does society worship the new or revere the old ? Are we excited or scared by the new ?


Is each one of us a unique blend of being neophilic and being neophobic? 


We can only inspect the evidence.


Let us consider some great tech successes :


Google Earth (2005)


The debut of Google Earth allowed people to view any location on Earth from their computers, and access high-definition satellite imagery unimaginable before this technology.


Virtual Reality (VR) Systems


The introduction of virtual reality systems like Oculus Rift enabled users to immerse themselves in virtual worlds and experience scenarios impossible in reality.


Artificial Intelligence and Voice Assistants


The first time Siri, Alexa, or Google Assistant understood and executed voice commands, it sparked great excitement. The idea that devices could not only comprehend human language but also perform actions based on it was groundbreaking.


Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies


Blockchain, the technology behind cryptocurrencies, had the potential to revolutionize not only the financial sector but also numerous other industries.


Shazam 


In 2000, a group of business school graduates and a Stanford PhD named Avery Wang cofounded a cell phone app called Shazam. Their idea was to build a technology that can identify any song in the world with a press of a button and send a text back to the user with the title and artist. The tool turned millions of songs into unique audio maps called spectrograms like creating a digital fingerprint for every song in the world.


Now, Let’s explore noteworthy tech failures:


Sony Betamax (1975)


Despite its technical advantages, Betamax lost the format war in VCRs due to its higher price, shorter recording time, and lack of support from other companies.


Apple Lisa (1983)


A groundbreaking machine featuring a spectacular graphical user interface (GUI) and a mouse, its exorbitant price and underperforming hardware prevented it from achieving success.


IBM PCjr (1984)


IBM’s attempt to enter the home PC market with the PCjr in 1984 failed miserably. Its awkward “chiclet” keyboard, high price, and less-than-ideal performance led to its withdrawal from the market in 1987.


Apple Newton (1993)


Before the iPhone and iPod, there was the Apple Newton. Launched in 1993, it aimed to be the future of personal digital assistants (PDAs). However, the device’s bulkiness, weight, and imperfect handwriting recognition led to its discontinuation in 1998.


Segway (2001)


Launched in 2001, the Segway aimed to revolutionize personal transportation. It was not to be. Production ceased in 2020.


Microsoft Zune (2006)


In 2006, Microsoft attempted to rival Apple’s iPod with the Zune media player. However, poor timing, lack of an intuitive software, and a poor ecosystem led to its discontinuation in 2011.


Google+ (2011)


Google introduced its social networking platform, Google+, in 2011. Despite ambitious efforts, it failed to pose a significant threat to Facebook due to its complexity and a lack of compelling incentives for users to switch.


Google Glass (2013)


Google Glass, launched in 2013, aimed to revolutionize augmented reality but became synonymous with privacy invasion. Ethical concerns and its high price led to the shelving of the consumer version, rendering it a collector’s item.


What is the conclusion ? 


For as long as civilisation has existed, philosophers , sociologists , scientists, and politicians among others have tried to reduce the complexity of this world into a formulaic theory for success. In all likelihood, none exists. The word theory itself comes from “Theo Ria” - merely a way of looking. 


The human condition cannot be pulled in only one direction. Therefore, the future in fashion may well be going back to an earlier fashion. 


The surprise and unpredictability of what works and what doesn’t will remain forever. What we do know for sure is that success depends on acceptance. 


Ultimately, consumer is queen!


Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.

Simply Speaking: Shorts #3 - Success - fluke or formula ?

Being a little bit wrong at the right time is better than being entirely right at the wrong time. 

A Cassandra refers to a person who has the ability to foresee or predict future events, but is unable to change or prevent them from happening. 

This term comes from Greek mythology, where Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam of Troy, was granted the gift of prophecy by Apollo. However, when she refused his advances, he cursed her so that no one would believe her predictions. 

Before the Trojan War, Cassandra warned that the Greeks would invade through a wooden horse and sack the city. Her warnings were ignored. Troy was gutted. 

The cruelty of her gift and the tragedy of her malefic fate eventually drove her mad.

Being a Cassandra means possessing a keen insight or intuition about future events. Having the ability and gumption to issue warnings yet being ignored, dismissed, or disbelieved by others.

A Cassandra is often dismissed as a paranoid alarmist. The analysis is dismissed for pessimism.

To have a unique perspective or foresight, but not be taken seriously can make one feel frustrated or powerless especially in the face of impending doom.

Being a Cassandra can be a challenging and isolating experience.

Oracles with no authority, Cassandras keep blabbering about imminent calamities while the world keeps doing its thing. 

Is that so? Does it need to be tragic? 

Think again. In today’s world, to be a Cassandra may be a source of deep power and profit. 

Today - with a connected world of capital and market flows - predicting the future is most profitable exactly when everybody thinks you're wrong.

Knowing - correct and exclusive information - ahead of time is a gold mine when others don’t think so. 

Look for Cassandras - experts, research, or improbable insights. Then check if they are predicting what has been ignored.

The next Cassandra won’t emerge from smarter information management. What data tells us is known to all. It’s the insight that reveals truly. 

When a movie star is a hit, everyone lines up to sign the next movie. This drives up the price and makes the next flop a disaster. Common knowledge erodes return from a good investment. 

Wildlife enthusiasts know of this as the ‘sentinel behaviour’, the ability to detect danger from warning signs before others see it. The behaviour is observed in a variety of animals, such as antelopes. The predator-prey dynamic is such that the pack seems genetically predisposed to respond quickly to the warnings.

In humans, that ability is less well developed. Mankind doesn’t intuitively get probabilistic downsides.

That is precisely why predicting the future is most profitable when everybody thinks you're wrong.

Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.

Simply Speaking: Shorts #2 - Cassandra revisited

iPhone: 3 in 1 

A triumph of acumen

A triumph of judgement 

A triumph of courage


Incorrect predictions, unexpected outcomes, faulty prophesies, sheer happenstance and plain misjudgment all these have a place in the history of Big Tech. But above all innovators move markets with confidence.
 
In January 2007, Steve Jobs introduced a revolutionary ‘three in one’ product: 

First - A wide-screen iPod with touch controls. 

Second - A fabulous mobile phone.

Third - A never before Internet communications device.

He called it the iPhone. It was a touch screen, a music player, a phone, and Internet access and more. 

Steve Ballmer - Microsoft CEO - prophesied that there was no chance of it gaining any market share traction given its pricing. 

A market research report by Universal McCann on a big sample of ten thousand respondents declared that it would flop. 

In sum, the consensus was that where multiple available devices were sophisticated and affordable, people would not want one device.

When you could have a great cell phone, a great digital camera and an MP3 player why would you prefer a one size fits all product with no claims to being superior in any of the three? 

Expertise ranks above versatility, this was the view.

But we now know that the iPhone was not a flop. 

Apple’s iPhone business was, within less than a decade, worth more than Microsoft.

In the history of mankind there has never been a more commercially successful device. So much for predictions. 

Apple had spent billions of dollars and five years designing a product that people could not want.

What lessons are to be learned? 

Firstly, innovation needs creativity. 

Secondly, that creativity ought to explore new approaches. 

Finally , all new approaches have inherent risk. 

Risk tolerance is a type of courage, a willingness to confront potential failures. 

Fear and vulnerability can foster a culture of conformity, where people avoid stepping outside their comfort zones. Everyone agrees but they know they have the wrong answer. 

If your plan is simply to survive for the day, week, month or quarter and kick the can forwards you won’t make an iPhone. 

Shubhranshu Singh is CMO, Tata Motors CVBU. He writes Simply Speaking, a column on Storyboard18. Views expressed are personal.

SIMPLY SPEAKING