Interesting debate where I was happy to contribute in The Drum article on the recent Goldman Sachs AI report which raises important critical questions on use of #AI investments in the creative and marketing industry. My POV on it.... The arrival of #AI in marketing is a double-edged sword. AI tools and solutions bring unprecedented efficiencies and possibilities, but their general availability also levels the playing field. The Goldman Sachs report’s skepticism about ROI for non-tech businesses underscores a critical issue: how can any agency charge a premium or maintain better margins when everyone has access to the same AI capabilities? The key lies in how these tools are applied. Agencies can set themselves apart by their unique approach to integrating AI into their operations, strategies, and creative processes. The real value moves from the technologies themselves to the expertise and creative application of those tools. At Omnicom, we call this "Elegance at Scale." The challenge is bringing creativity back to AI as brands demand more customized content at scale. Often, content studios and one-off tools slow down, become more expensive, and lose quality when scaling. Agencies that invest in customized data analytics solutions, proprietary AI applications, and skilled talent can offer faster insights, faster creative sprints, and lower funnel efficiencies. By rethinking their costing models from FTE to pay-for-demand, agencies can also provide tailored strategies that a highly qualified, AI-savvy workforce can deliver, making clients willing to pay a premium for these enhanced integrated intelligence services.
Goldman Sachs' recent report raises important questions about the actual benefits of artificial intelligence (#AI) investments. While it presents a thought-provoking perspective, it lacks thorough analysis in several critical areas. One major shortcoming is the insufficient exploration of the human element within organizations. The report fails to adequately address the repercussions of ineffective leadership, the increasing rates of employee burnout, and the unclear definition of talent and its importance in solving complex challenges. The fundamental issue lies in the inclination of businesses and leaders to implement AI as a superficial fix without addressing existing organisational dysfunctions. This approach is nothing more than treating symptoms rather than tackling root causes, potentially leading to further complications. Failing to Define what Talent is or including the deeper factors in human experiences exposes the already great unspoken risk that is existing in current business. Additionally, the report neglects a vital concept known as Conway's Law, which posits that AI systems will mirror the biases and dysfunctions of the organizations that create them. If an AI development company lacks awareness of its internal issues, it will struggle to comprehend customer needs or deliver effective solutions. This disconnect contributes to a growing sense of disillusionment, indicating that we may be caught in an AI bubble that is on the verge of bursting—much like a runaway train heading toward an inevitable stop. The commentary from The Drum further emphasizes the need to consider the current state of businesses from the perspective of employee experiences. Questions arise about the implications of significant workforce reductions and the exhaustion of low-hanging fruit from AI and generative AI technologies. Is this a conversation we should be having now? While it may appear to be an employer's market, the dynamics can shift rapidly. The contributors to The Drum article raise intriguing questions regarding their insights into talent complexity and whether they have a fluid talent complexity risk matrix to adapt to employee turnover and understand the reasons behind it. How effectively are they monitoring both their own well-being and that of their employees? Our experience, independent of sources like Gallup, confirms that 70% to 80% of employees are experiencing dysfunction related to stress and burnout. Additionally, there is a concerning trend of over-promoting individuals to leadership roles without the necessary skills or experience. Gareth Davies Jessica Vo Jeremiah Knight Meghan Labot Brian Yamada Stephen Ledger-Lomas Barney Worfolk Smith 🦩 Malcolm Poynton Jef Loeb Kate Ross James Calvert Nick Watts Hannah Baker Anis Zantout Matt Rebeiro Max Lederer Katy Hindley Pete Trainor Julie Michael Elliott Millard Jason Foo Nick Gallimore Katie Hankinson https://lnkd.in/dbb9k247