Sir Martin Sorrell pulled off a great stunt in the early 2000s. He called a press conference and claimed that WPP had developed software that could eliminate all the creatives from his payroll. The only glitch: the press conference was held on April 1st. Fast forward to 2026, and Sorrell’s April Fool’s prank is now a reality. Today, we can technically get rid of every single creative and churn out content for brands at scale, as the new buzzword says. Add to that AI LLMs and agents talking to each other to recommend brands, products or services, and we have reached the ultimate stage: The End of Advertising.
Where do we go from there? I believe that market positions (shares + volumes) will freeze, because advertising content will be so mediocre, so undifferentiated and so abundant that it will have no role in terms of influencing purchase decisions. It will be a trench war with little or no movement. In the communication mix, packaging, retail design and brand identity will be the key differentiators in a world of sameness. This is probably the last area of “creativity” until AI takes over as well.
In that context, marketing departments will focus on two things: Innovation and Price/Promotions. In the worst-case scenario, lower pricing and promotions will take over innovation and, in the best-case scenario, Innovation will take over. I truly believe that this new system can actually work, provided nobody ever hires creatives again. The best example is the tobacco industry, where little or no advertising is allowed in many countries since the mid-90s. In such geographies, positions have frozen, value brands have thrived (Chesterfield) and innovation has had a big impact on the category (IQOS).
Now I let you imagine the scenario if only one tobacco brand were allowed to advertise properly. Not only would it grow at the expense of all other tobacco brands, but it would also do so at a fraction of the cost of a promotion or a price drop or an NPD. Indeed, financial departments approve lavish spending on Trade Marketing and MarTech because it looks rational. Not many understand that the creativity behind brand building is actually the cheapest option. Unfortunately, it does not sound rational. And it is apparently easier to unlock big money behind marginal gains vs. a much smaller amount behind something that could generate massive gains. If you think about it, what we are doing seems to make sense, but it doesn’t. It is rationally irrational.
A while ago, Francis Fukuyama wrote a book following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War: The End of History. Well, it made sense, seemed rational and was quite optimistic. Well, things did not pan out as planned. Humans are actually not that predictable, and they are actually totally irrational when it comes to purchase behavior. May I suggest we make big savings and big gains by switching the marketing playbook from rationally irrational to irrationally rational. Advertising’s proven economic contribution has been identified by major economists such as Keynes and Schumpeter.
This is why it has existed at least since Greek antiquity. Killing it is actually contrary to any proper economic theory except Marxism, which considers it detrimental. Funnily enough, the corporate capitalist world has actually adopted a Marxist approach lately by aiming to destroy advertising. Who would have thought that ultimate capitalism would follow the footsteps of the one remaining country that has successfully eradicated advertising: North Korea!
#makeadvertisinggreatagain
