Host: Nadia Cameron, Publisher | Editor – Marketing

CMOs have always sought to build best-practice marketing teams – it’s one of the first things they’ll have on the to-do list when they take up a new gig. But what does the marketing team of the future even look like in a world where AI is disrupting everything? How do you as a CMO chart a path through the changing AI landscape as organisations continue to pile on pressure to leverage AI tools, and as headcount cuts and productivity efficiencies become an even more expected output of AI adoption?

CMOs from Unicef, RAA and Accenture Australia, joined by Adobe ANZ head of Gen AI content and commerce, took to the mics in the latest CMO Awards podcast series, powered by Mi3, to unpack how they’re beginning to recast roles and build AI fluency, while managing the very real fear of AI existing across teams.

Accenture’s Carrie Smith says marketing team was ground zero for adopting AI agents from optimisation to entire workflow remodelling. Not an early journey to go on, it started with centralised planning, transparency and a focus on the marketing discipline first – not the tech – to understand which parts are difficult across workflows to get to great outcomes, she says.

RAA’s Michael Healy cites the first aha moment when the team saw what AI creative production was going to achieve. The second catalyst was adopting enterprise-grade Claude inside the organisation. “Very quickly, I formed a view as a marketing leader that with AI, one of a few things is going to happen. One, you'll get the tools in the hands of the people, and you'll figure out how to use it together, and thus, generate competitive advantage. Or two, you will eventually have a consultancy in with your CEO or board saying, this is how your marketing team should be using AI, and if they're not, you're already behind, which I have openly said to my team is a very problematic place to find ourselves in.”

Giving people time to experiment was critical at Unicef, but equally, a CEO-wide mandate to not shrink with AI and instead, drive incremental revenue proved transformative. It’d led to temporarily bringing the full technology team into the marketing remit to unite the technical experts with the marketers using those tools and driving those business needs. “It's been a big learning curve on both sides, and it's not a permanent structure, but I think it will leave a deeper way of working and understanding between the two teams,” says Libby Hodgson.

When it comes to where AI is having greatest early impact in marketing, Adobe’s Sheerien Salindera points to content supply chain efficiencies as the first unlock. “We call it content economics, and the throughput of a piece of content, the ability to remix it, send it off for legal approval, bring it back all of those sort of steps and hand offs that used to take a long time, making that more automated,” she says. “But the next piece is getting the AI to not just give you speed to market … but really embedding the AI on your brand, on your tone of voice, on your creative and bringing your own IP and brand models to life.”

Tune into this highly informative, relevant marketing conversation here.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AI’s impact is rapidly eroding public trust in content, including the vast volumes originated by brands.

Gen Z is leading the public concern, typified by confusion over what is real and what has been blurred, blended and bent by nefarious AI operatives with hot prompts.

At stake for marketers and corporate affairs in an independently commissioned study called News Nation, is escalating consumer doubt over the provenance and authenticity of the content they consume – and around the brands linked to it. It holds as much for brand-produced content and owned channels as the content from others they pay to place their ads around.

The impact for brands is seismic – VaynerMedia’s Gary “Vee” Vaynerchuk predicts in as little as two years, “we're not going to believe a single video on the internet, not one”. (It’s a pressing problem for a content house and media buyer like Vaynerchuk who invests big client ad dollars in social video.)

The war in Iran offers the latest example, where graphics from a video game have been shared as real footage and viewed 70 million times.

The Gulf conflict has triggered a new flight to trusted sources – people seeking out truth from news sites. Audiences are spiking – particularly younger Australians, according to the latest ThinkNewsBrands data, which suggests one of the biggest shifts in behaviour and sentiment since Covid is now underway.

Yet advertisers are largely absent on the soft assets they say matter most – reputation and trust. Already they’re missing Gen Z’s return to selective news environments, in part because they deploy blunt brand safety tools that suppress and blacklist content and environments considered unsafe for their brands to be alongside. Their customers, particularly the younger set, meanwhile, pile into content they feel safer to trust.

Case in point? Major brands blocked adverts on Time Magazine’s Taylor Swift cover story because suppression lists detected the word “feminist”; likewise, the same kill switch was deployed for a Time article on the James Webb telescope – because it mentioned the “violent death of a star”. Advertisers also missed out on surging Wimbledon and Olympics audiences because of blocked words like ‘shot’, ‘smash’ and ‘killer technique’.

The Trade Desk’s VP – ANZ James Bayes, News Corp Australia’s Laura Maxwell and Nine’s Ashleigh Thomas suggest marketers and media buyers align with real, in-market customers and audience behaviour – and challenge the commercial incentives of brand safety firms whose fees and revenues on these products are linked to volume and the appearance of good governance. Brands also need to question whether they can afford to keep pouring money into walled gardens dominated by AI-created content. Especially when nobody believes it is real, nobody trusts it, and ultimately, if nobody worth targeting watches.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host: Nadia Cameron, Publisher | Editor – Marketing

Last year, one of the world’s leading minds on attention, Amplified founder Dr Karen Nelson-Field, set out to put a figure on the eye-watering cost of dull media. The job followed on from the esteemed Dr Peter Field and Eatbigfish consultancy lead, Adam Morgan’s original work ascertaining the cost associated with dull creative. The media work was based on attention volume – a metric that compares how much attention an ad actually gets versus how much is theoretically possible (the total time in view).

Globally, the tariff exposed was huge: US$198bn per year is being spent to make up for shortfall of dull media choices as attention collapses tenfold and the mental availability opportunity is lost. That’s an average of $0.43 in every dollar spent. And it’s even higher than the $189bn wasted on dull creative per the former research.

Now for the first time, the true cost of dull media has been revealed in Australia, and yep, it’s equally shocking: $6bn in annual wasted media budget. That’s over 20% of the nearly $30 billion Australian marketers reportedly spent on advertising in 2025.

The numbers behind the dollar headline are stark: Very dull media makes advertising up to 12× less efficient, meaning every dollar has to work dramatically harder to generate the same outcome. Only 38 per cent of viewers are reaching the crucial 2.5-second memory threshold – the point when advertising is encoding in memory, per Dr Nelson-Field – from the media choices brands are marketing right now. That means brand impact falls 35%, weakening brand growth – something marketers cannot afford to do.

“These are sticker shock moments for people because … we're not codifying the value, we're codifying the loss. And it makes people really gasp, quite frankly, because they don't really realise it at an aggregate level,” Dr Field says. “What that technically means is you need the same amount of money again, Australia, to get the same outcomes in non-dull if you continue to advertise in extremely or very dull media.”

An underlying conundrum is too many are chasing the cheapest CPM and reach, thinking that’s both efficient and effective, when in fact it’s an illusion: Too often the brand is sacrificing being seen to simply being served, says Dr Nelson-Field.

For Peita Pacey, chief strategy and behaviour change officer, Hearts & Science Australia, part of the Omnicom Media Group, Dr Field’s data finally puts a price on something many planners, strategists and marketers have felt intuitively.

“This is not about vilifying different channels, just to be really clear, it’s actually about understanding the role very specifically of channels in order delivering to specific objectives,” she says. “It’s also not about necessarily chasing a new metric. We have a number of different metrics we use when we're planning and when we're negotiating, and maybe some of them aren't as fit for purpose as they used to be, because we have more data now. But it's really about giving us the tools in our armour so we can go and more effectively plan to cognition and think about human processing, rather than just exposure or opportunity to see.”

Val Morgan MD, Guy Burbidge, goes further, arguing obsession with reach and CPMs has led too many down the garden path to media choices that do not pay off. “I don't think it's any secret that something like $0.75 cents or $0.80, and the dollar is going into the big platforms. That's really what the problem is,” he says.

“What we see is proxies like reach and CPM overtaking some of the other more important and more valuable proxies, like outcomes, windows of time – what we're all trying to actually deliver as marketers. An awful lot of channels, ours included, are being debased to those two very simple things.”

Listen to the full conversation here.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.