John Singleton, the troublemaking larrikin adman who’s turning 80 this year, was all but penniless when he returned to advertising in 1985. Then he and his lieutenants, Russell Tate and Mike Connaghan ultimately built a holding company worth close to $1bn. He was “impossible to follow” in a new business pitch but with Singleton’s old group now back firmly in British control after WPP acquired and delisted WPP AUNZ, the trio reflect on what was and what could have been (with some trademark swipes along the way).    

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Singleton, the troublemaking larrikin adman who&rsquo;s turning 80 this year, was all but penniless when he returned to advertising in 1985. Then he and his lieutenants, Russell Tate and Mike Connaghan ultimately built a holding company worth close to $1bn. He was &ldquo;impossible to follow&rdquo; in a new business pitch but with Singleton&rsquo;s old group now back firmly in British control after WPP acquired and delisted WPP AUNZ, the trio reflect on what was and what could have been (with some trademark swipes along the way). &nbsp; &nbsp;See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.

A weekly wrap of the “must-know” developments in Marketing, Media, Agency and Technology for leaders and emerging leaders in the industry. Veteran industry journalist and Mi3 Executive Editor Paul McIntyre talks each week with guest marketers who are in the know on what matters at the nexus of marketing, agencies, media and technology. Powered mostly by Human Intelligence (HI).

A weekly wrap of the “must-know” developments in Marketing, Media, Agency and Technology for leaders and emerging leaders in the industry. Veteran industry journalist and Mi3 Executive Editor Paul McIntyre talks each week...

Mi3 Audio Edition

Part One: John Singleton, Russell Tate and Mike Connaghan lament lost opportunities for WPP and their once $1bn advertising empire

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.

AI&rsquo;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 &ndash; 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 &ndash; VaynerMedia&rsquo;s <a href="https://www.mi-3.com.au/03-02-2026/gary-vee-doing-superbowl-ads-kelloggs-next-week-heres-why-he-wont-buy-more-tv-what-he">Gary &ldquo;Vee&rdquo; Vaynerchuk predicts in as little as two years, &ldquo;we're not going to believe a single video on the internet, not one&rdquo;</a>. (It&rsquo;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, <a href="https://www.mi-3.com.au/13-03-2026/why-most-effective-environment-brands-still-news-media">where graphics from a video game have been shared as real footage and viewed 70 million times.</a> The Gulf conflict has triggered a new flight to trusted sources &ndash; people seeking out truth from news sites. Audiences are spiking &ndash; 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 &ndash; reputation and trust. Already they&rsquo;re missing Gen Z&rsquo;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&rsquo;s Taylor Swift cover story because suppression lists detected the word &ldquo;feminist&rdquo;; likewise, the same kill switch was deployed for a Time article on the James Webb telescope &ndash; because it mentioned the &ldquo;violent death of a star&rdquo;. Advertisers also missed out on surging Wimbledon and Olympics audiences because of blocked words like &lsquo;shot&rsquo;, &lsquo;smash&rsquo; and &lsquo;killer technique&rsquo;.
The Trade Desk&rsquo;s VP &ndash; ANZ James Bayes, News Corp Australia&rsquo;s Laura Maxwell and Nine&rsquo;s Ashleigh Thomas suggest marketers and media buyers align with real, in-market customers and audience behaviour &ndash; 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.

Biggest consumer trust, sentiment shift since Covid; Gen Z leads as AI, deep fake content sows doubt – brand safety tools block swing to safer sources

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/fa326977-3de5-4283-9b8b-af3500c58607/clips/59b5d453-faf7-4af4-816d-b41900444322/transcript

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. 

Host: Nadia Cameron, Publisher | Editor &ndash; Marketing
Last year, one of the world&rsquo;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&rsquo;s original work ascertaining the cost associated with dull creative. The media work was based on attention volume &ndash; 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&rsquo;s an average of $0.43 in every dollar spent. And it&rsquo;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&rsquo;s equally shocking: $6bn in annual wasted media budget. That&rsquo;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&times; 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 &ndash; the point when advertising is encoding in memory, per Dr Nelson-Field &ndash; from the media choices brands are marketing right now. That means brand impact falls 35%, weakening brand growth &ndash; something marketers cannot afford to do.
&ldquo;These are sticker shock moments for people because &hellip; 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,&rdquo; Dr Field says. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
An underlying conundrum is too many are chasing the cheapest CPM and reach, thinking that&rsquo;s both efficient and effective, when in fact it&rsquo;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 &amp; Science Australia, part of the Omnicom Media Group, Dr Field&rsquo;s data finally puts a price on something many planners, strategists and marketers have felt intuitively.
&ldquo;This is not about vilifying different channels, just to be really clear, it&rsquo;s actually about understanding the role very specifically of channels in order delivering to specific objectives,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;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.&rdquo;
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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he says.
&ldquo;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 &ndash; 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.&rdquo;
Listen to the full conversation here.

Australia’s $6bn dull media tax: Quest for the Cost Per Meaningless Thousand, cheap reach sees brands sacrificing attention and impact, culminating in a 12X efficiency gap, finds Dr Karen Nelson-Field

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/fa326977-3de5-4283-9b8b-af3500c58607/clips/70fe9ad3-4e75-4f52-9d7c-b4160042612a/transcript

Host: Paul McIntyre, Editor-At-Large

95 per cent of St Kilda Football Club’s marketing budget goes into its owned assets. Chief Customer and Commercial Officer, Michael Scott, has worked across some of the world’s biggest and best consumer marketing companies. Now he’s packaging up “rich reach” and “mind-blowing” engagement rates to woo advertisers.

The likes of Chery are buying in: Across two years working with the Chinese car brand, “we've increased their awareness by 17 percentage points, consideration by eight percentage points, and trust by 14 percentage points,” says Scott. “For a new entrant brand that had almost no awareness … that's an incredible result, which we've been able to deliver through our owned media channels.”

Engagement rates among St Kilda’s fans and members eclipse anything Scott’s seen at the likes of Rip Curl and Nike. Email open rates are 60-70 per cent; TikTok engagement rates between 9-10.5 per cent. Instagram? “Our engagement rate is four to five times that of Nike.”

He’s betting advertisers will pay a premium for “rich reach” versus bigger audiences touted by media rivals. Scott sees Netflix, Paramount and Stan as competitors.

“I've always been an advocate of having a quality conversation with a small number of people on the street, rather than walking through the middle of the road with a megaphone. I’m not sure yelling at the top of your voice achieves much,” per Scott.

St Kilda’s is simultaneous stretching its own base beyond middle-aged male heartlands. Tweenage girls are a key growth target; the club sees major upside within the women’s game.

Scott has monetised owned media with the likes of Myer and Virgin Australia – and says functional silos are the biggest blockers, particularly for retail media networks.

“It just becomes far more powerful and easier to execute when the egos are dropped, the paradigms are put to the side, and everyone just recognises the incredible value which [owned media] offers the organisation.”

He suggests underlining the financial upside concentrates minds.

“I think the value creation – on a dollars and cents level – was the thing that probably captured most people's attention. You can talk to acquisition of data, personalisation and marketing sharpness and they are all nice to hear. But the CEO or CFO are the ultimate arbiters on where resource is placed. So you need to present a value creation story. That's probably the thing that allows organisations to shift gear.”

Jonathan Hopkins and Angus Frazer, founders of owned media consultancy Sonder, back that view to the hilt.

Host: Paul McIntyre, Editor-At-Large
95 per cent of St Kilda Football Club&rsquo;s marketing budget goes into its owned assets. Chief Customer and Commercial Officer, Michael Scott, has worked across some of the world&rsquo;s biggest and best consumer marketing companies. Now he&rsquo;s packaging up &ldquo;rich reach&rdquo; and &ldquo;mind-blowing&rdquo; engagement rates to woo advertisers.
The likes of Chery are buying in: Across two years working with the Chinese car brand, &ldquo;we've increased their awareness by 17 percentage points, consideration by eight percentage points, and trust by 14 percentage points,&rdquo; says Scott. &ldquo;For a new entrant brand that had almost no awareness &hellip; that's an incredible result, which we've been able to deliver through our owned media channels.&rdquo;
Engagement rates among St Kilda&rsquo;s fans and members eclipse anything Scott&rsquo;s seen at the likes of Rip Curl and Nike. Email open rates are 60-70 per cent; TikTok engagement rates between 9-10.5 per cent. Instagram? &ldquo;Our engagement rate is four to five times that of Nike.&rdquo;
He&rsquo;s betting advertisers will pay a premium for &ldquo;rich reach&rdquo; versus bigger audiences touted by media rivals. Scott sees Netflix, Paramount and Stan as competitors.
&ldquo;I've always been an advocate of having a quality conversation with a small number of people on the street, rather than walking through the middle of the road with a megaphone. I&rsquo;m not sure yelling at the top of your voice achieves much,&rdquo; per Scott.
St Kilda&rsquo;s is simultaneous stretching its own base beyond middle-aged male heartlands. Tweenage girls are a key growth target; the club sees major upside within the women&rsquo;s game.
Scott has monetised owned media with the likes of Myer and Virgin Australia &ndash; and says functional silos are the biggest blockers, particularly for retail media networks.
&ldquo;It just becomes far more powerful and easier to execute when the egos are dropped, the paradigms are put to the side, and everyone just recognises the incredible value which [owned media] offers the organisation.&rdquo;
He suggests underlining the financial upside concentrates minds.
&ldquo;I think the value creation &ndash; on a dollars and cents level &ndash; was the thing that probably captured most people's attention. You can talk to acquisition of data, personalisation and marketing sharpness and they are all nice to hear. But the CEO or CFO are the ultimate arbiters on where resource is placed. So you need to present a value creation story. That's probably the thing that allows organisations to shift gear.&rdquo;
Jonathan Hopkins and Angus Frazer, founders of owned media consultancy Sonder, back that view to the hilt.

‘All about rich reach’: ex-McDonald’s, Nike, Myer, Virgin, Rip Curl marketer builds owned media powerhouse at St Kilda’s with ‘mind blowing engagement’; Huge Chery auto gains prove it works

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/fa326977-3de5-4283-9b8b-af3500c58607/clips/3524b1e5-b229-45d7-94b5-b41101817a65/transcript

Part One: John Singleton, Russell Tate and Mike Connaghan lament lost opportunities for WPP and their once $1bn advertising empire

In 1 playlist(s)

Mi3 Audio Edition

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips