Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jay Ley.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Your
Speaker 1: main the event of the week, really, Chairman pab will
Speaker 1: be speaking in Jackson Hole. Ready please to say that
Speaker 1: here in New York, right here, right now. Dana Peterson
Speaker 1: joins US Cities Global Economists. Good morning to Dana, Good morning,
Speaker 1: how are you. Let's talk about what you've seen in
Speaker 1: the FED minutes and what you expect from Chairman pal
Speaker 1: on Friday. Just walk us through it. Sure, I mean
Speaker 1: the FED minutes are a little bit dated, but I
Speaker 1: think what's important is that the Fed was again very
Speaker 1: clear about what the reasons from why they cut interest rates.
Speaker 1: Three things. Number one, inflation persistently missing there to present
Speaker 1: target and concerns about making sure that they achieve that
Speaker 1: target over the next two years. Number two, a lot
Speaker 1: of concern about the global economy um reflected in financial markets.
Speaker 1: And number three uncertainty. Uncertainty brought about by the trade
Speaker 1: wars between the US and the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: And so with those three things, the FED said, yes,
Speaker 1: we're implementing this insurance cut, and this is a mid
Speaker 1: cycle adjustment. Um, what is the FED looking at? I
Speaker 1: see six things. On the one hand, the Fed's looking
Speaker 1: at the real economy, growth, inflation, and the labor market.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, the FED is looking at financial conditions,
Speaker 1: the external environment, and the generalized degree of uncertainty. And
Speaker 1: so with those things, at least three of the six
Speaker 1: are signaling red signals right now, right, I love the
Speaker 1: idea of of six things. It's sort of like throw
Speaker 1: a dart, which one is going to actually be the
Speaker 1: most important to look at it any given moment. So, DNA,
Speaker 1: I want you to weigh in on the on the
Speaker 1: sort of hypothetical that John and I were talking about.
Speaker 1: Let's say the FED cuts rates by seventy five basis
Speaker 1: points in September, totally surprises everybody. I'm not saying this
Speaker 1: is likely possible whatever, They're not going to do this,
Speaker 1: but let's just say they do. Will that steep in
Speaker 1: the yield curve? Will that prompt a further rally in stocks,
Speaker 1: or will that send shock and fear through markets? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be the two handed economists a little bit here.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't expect well, first of all, I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, we probably would be among those analysts lined
Speaker 1: up outside of your window saying, hey, the FED just
Speaker 1: wasted you know, a lot of precious UM monetary policy space. UM.
Speaker 1: But the thing is that you have these these these
Speaker 1: two different uh things that are weighing on the yield curve.
Speaker 1: At the short end, yes, markets are expecting the FED
Speaker 1: are believing that the FED should go seventy basis points.
Speaker 1: At the other end of the curve, you have a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure because their concerns about the equity market. Um,
Speaker 1: we're looking at earnings for the I can have of
Speaker 1: this year. They're going to be downgraded considerably, And so
Speaker 1: you have this flight to quality. That's great the US.
Speaker 1: The scene is quality. UM. But with all those things,
Speaker 1: the FED kit possibly really affect everything. UM. The FED
Speaker 1: has the most control over the shorter end of the curve.
Speaker 1: And certainly if the FED does implement all of this,
Speaker 1: you still have them trade wars and everyone's thinking that
Speaker 1: the FED can offset the negative effects of policies in Washington.
Speaker 1: Just to build on Lisa's question. I think it's an
Speaker 1: important one. Typically, what you would expect is the curve
Speaker 1: to bull steep in the front end yields to drop aggressively,
Speaker 1: and the longer end maybe even pick up. What we've
Speaker 1: seen though in places like Europe, in Japan, and increasingly
Speaker 1: maybe even here in the United States, is when we
Speaker 1: start to think about easing, where the short rate goes,
Speaker 1: that just bleeds across the curve and the whole curve
Speaker 1: just becomes a whole lot shallower. Do you see any
Speaker 1: reason to believe why cutting aggressively will actually boost growth expectations,
Speaker 1: boost inflation expect titians to the extent that people won't
Speaker 1: just take that view on short rates and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, I just think we're going to be low
Speaker 1: for a whole lot longer. I'm going to drop the
Speaker 1: whole curve down flatter, flatter, flatter, and just beat the
Speaker 1: whole thing even lower. Your sentiments are exactly what our
Speaker 1: rate strategist have been saying that if the FED goes
Speaker 1: goes hard in terms of cutting interest rates, that we
Speaker 1: were not going to see the stepening of the YO
Speaker 1: curve because everyone globally is going to expect low for longer,
Speaker 1: lower growth rates, potentially lower inflation, lower interest rates both
Speaker 1: nominal and real. And so we're not going to see
Speaker 1: this stepening. And that's the challenge for the FED. What
Speaker 1: does the FED do in this environment. Let's say we
Speaker 1: do get a trade deal, let's say the US and
Speaker 1: Chin to make progress. Does that materially change the outlook?
Speaker 1: And the reason why I'm asking this is because Stephen
Speaker 1: Major of HSBC, who has gotten the rates picture correct,
Speaker 1: he's been sort of the lone voice getting it right
Speaker 1: year after year. He came out and said, not even
Speaker 1: that would be enough to cause yields to go up
Speaker 1: at this point. It's deeper than that. Would you agree, Well,
Speaker 1: we would say this that even if there is a deal,
Speaker 1: it's uncertain what this deal might look like. It's probably
Speaker 1: going to be an ear of a deal. But the
Speaker 1: damage has already been done globally as well as in
Speaker 1: u as. We've already seen businesses pull back, They've retrenched
Speaker 1: with respect to investment um, Factory activity has collapsed. People. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, with the trade deals, or rather with the
Speaker 1: trade wars. We have businesses that are losing clients. You
Speaker 1: can't reverse all of that and the damage has already
Speaker 1: been done, and you would need a very significant trade
Speaker 1: deal and some reorientation that would benefit the global economy
Speaker 1: from trade command on a bright spot, just a little one,
Speaker 1: just a little glimmer of hope, But that wasn't helpful
Speaker 1: to you. In Germany incredibly incredibly important manufacturing sector, we'll
Speaker 1: all agree with that, much more important for Germany than
Speaker 1: say the United States. And yet still the service actor
Speaker 1: is okay. Can't the United States take a little bit
Speaker 1: of confidence from that that in Germany they have a
Speaker 1: terrible manufacturing situation right now and services is still holding up.
Speaker 1: If that's the case, isn't that pretty encouraging for the
Speaker 1: United States? Well, I think as an economist anything that
Speaker 1: that certainly is encouraging. And it's actually a story we're
Speaker 1: seeing around the world, including in the US, where manufacturing
Speaker 1: is tanking, um reflecting the fact that China has been
Speaker 1: weakening for some time, even before the trade wars, and
Speaker 1: then you have the trade wars layered on. But the
Speaker 1: services sector has been doing well, and also consumers are
Speaker 1: still spending, and so there are some bright spots regionally,
Speaker 1: domestically and among a number of economies. But you cannot
Speaker 1: ignore the fact that trade globally has collapsed. Even in
Speaker 1: the US exports plus imports, when you add them together,
Speaker 1: growth rates have dropped to zero. Danna was great to
Speaker 1: cant shop with you. Really thoughtful stuff has always Danna
Speaker 1: Peterson Cities Global Economists. Great to have you with me, Lisa,
Speaker 1: and great to have Lisa with us on a big
Speaker 1: day for central banking as the Annual Symposium and Jackson Hole,
Speaker 1: Wyoming kicks off with the Federal Reserve, the House Fed
Speaker 1: President in the Kansas City Chief. Of course, as that
Speaker 1: George kicks things off for us. She caught up with
Speaker 1: Michael McKee a little bit earlier on. Here's what she
Speaker 1: had to say about the outlook for monetary policy. Take
Speaker 1: a listen. I think where rates are right now relative
Speaker 1: to the unemployment rate and inflation suggest we're at a
Speaker 1: sort of equilibrium right now, and I'd be happy to
Speaker 1: leave rates here absent seeing either some weakness or some strengthening,
Speaker 1: some kind of upside risk that would cause me to
Speaker 1: think rates should be somewhere else Where would you put
Speaker 1: the neutral rate right now relative to where you are?
Speaker 1: Are you tight? Are you loose? Accommodative? How do you
Speaker 1: see it? So I would policy to be at neutral
Speaker 1: or even accommodated with this last rate cut. If you
Speaker 1: think about where real interest rates are relative to the
Speaker 1: rate of inflation and where the FED funds rate is,
Speaker 1: we're operating close to zero with real rates. I can't
Speaker 1: believe that that is tight in any sense for the
Speaker 1: economy right now. Would you push back against the argument
Speaker 1: then that the December rate increase was a mistake on
Speaker 1: the FEDS part. So, I think in my public speeches,
Speaker 1: my view was we were beginning to see mounting downside
Speaker 1: risk at that time, and that those were beginning to
Speaker 1: have some concern about the outlook. Give influenced my outlook
Speaker 1: in terms of flattening a path of policy at that point.
Speaker 1: But I think, as we've judged over the last two quarters,
Speaker 1: the economy has continued to grow, and I don't think
Speaker 1: I think the economy has absorbed that so well. If
Speaker 1: you're not ready to put more accommodation into the economy
Speaker 1: but you don't want to pre commit, uh, would you
Speaker 1: be able to say that you would definitely dissent on
Speaker 1: a fifty basis point cut like the markets are calling for.
Speaker 1: I don't see a case for a fifty basis point
Speaker 1: cut today. But again I'm mindful in these decisions. You're
Speaker 1: making judgments about how you read the data up until
Speaker 1: the time of the meeting, And importantly for me, I
Speaker 1: use that meeting to listen to my colleagues to hear
Speaker 1: what their arguments are, how they wait some of those risks.
Speaker 1: So it's always difficult for me to prejudge where I
Speaker 1: will come out until I get into that meeting. Do
Speaker 1: you think markets are looking at the economy rationally these days?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not in the markets to know
Speaker 1: what those judgments are. I think markets see how the
Speaker 1: rest of the world is slowing. I think uncertainty never
Speaker 1: plays well UM in the market, So I understand why
Speaker 1: you see fear and uncertainty right now. That isn't the
Speaker 1: metric though that UM. I feel we have to focus
Speaker 1: on We have a clear mandate and I think a
Speaker 1: law term view that we have to stay focused on.
Speaker 1: Agriculture is big in your district. Farmers have complained that
Speaker 1: with the trade wars, they can't sell. Prices have gone down,
Speaker 1: yet at the same time, the administration is using the
Speaker 1: extra taxes were all paying in tariffs to compensate the farmers.
Speaker 1: So are they bad badly off or are they making
Speaker 1: it through okay because of these payments. What's the real
Speaker 1: story with it? So farmers began to experience a real
Speaker 1: hit to their incomes going back before the tariffs, commodity
Speaker 1: prices for grains came off. So we're now into a
Speaker 1: fifth year of low farm incomes. That certainly stresses that sector,
Speaker 1: but by and large those farmers are not leveraged as
Speaker 1: they may have been in past cycles. Um they would
Speaker 1: much prefer having outlets for their product as opposed to
Speaker 1: subsidies coming in for that. So I don't think it's
Speaker 1: an even substitution for them, But I think they're going
Speaker 1: to continue to struggle until all the price of their
Speaker 1: commodity moves up. I know you would tell me that
Speaker 1: the FED is not influenced by politics. You go into
Speaker 1: the room and you put all that aside, you don't listen.
Speaker 1: But it's every day now, is it tiresome? So I'll
Speaker 1: tell you have to be focused on what your job is,
Speaker 1: and you have to understand that an institution like the FED,
Speaker 1: as many other aspects of our government, is built around
Speaker 1: checks and balances. So I have the ability to think
Speaker 1: about with complete accountability to Congress for our mandate, being
Speaker 1: transparent about my own views, to focus on what serves
Speaker 1: the American public best, and I think what serves them
Speaker 1: best is for the committee to remain focused on how
Speaker 1: do we achieve maximum employment and stable prices for the public.
Speaker 1: And I feel good that that's where the committee is focused.
Speaker 1: The Kansas City Fed presidents to George that dissenting against
Speaker 1: that right the of July, speaking to Bloomberg's Michael McKee added,
Speaker 1: Jackson Home, Wyoming. As we kick off that annual symposium
Speaker 1: at the G seven, we finally have a load of
Speaker 1: politicians getting together and try and sort out some problems.
Speaker 1: And I'm really pleased to say that joining us here
Speaker 1: in New York Bob Hormat's Kissinger vice chair, Bob, I
Speaker 1: had no idea. Sometimes I have to apologize that we
Speaker 1: get too familiar with fantastic guests, and then a piece
Speaker 1: of paper crosses my desk and I find out that
Speaker 1: you've been the U S Schrper, the presidential planner and
Speaker 1: NoteTaker in eight G seven summits, going all the way
Speaker 1: back to Bob. That's incredible. Yes, I started out in
Speaker 1: romboulle a Um nineteen seventy five and France when we
Speaker 1: were just coming out of the crisis that was caused
Speaker 1: by the oil price increases of nineteen seventy three. The
Speaker 1: world was trying to figure out how to get back
Speaker 1: on a on a growth trajectory without triggering a lot
Speaker 1: of inflation. And you know, we had the President United States,
Speaker 1: of President of France, Chancel of Germany, premises of Japan
Speaker 1: and others. They're working together, and the notion of a
Speaker 1: collective effort by the G seven to deal with the
Speaker 1: problems was really palpable. They were all really on the
Speaker 1: same track. Now in contrast and the meeting we're going
Speaker 1: to have in ba Ritz on there's division within the
Speaker 1: G seven, intense division, with the US threatening tariffs on automobiles,
Speaker 1: which will affect Germany and Japan. They're already tariffs on
Speaker 1: aluminum and steal uh. And the sentence of American leadership
Speaker 1: of the global economic order, constructive leadership that was so
Speaker 1: palpable then when we had President Ford, who was our
Speaker 1: president now is not there at all. In divisions could
Speaker 1: make this a more negative environment uh than a positive one,
Speaker 1: and undermined confidence that would be harmful. You've touched on
Speaker 1: the changes initially, let's explore them further. Typically, the interpretation
Speaker 1: of perception from the outside looking again is that these
Speaker 1: were very scripted events. Diplomats behind the scenes got together.
Speaker 1: They basically scripted all the bilaterals, and the outcome was
Speaker 1: almost predetermined before the G seven happens. Sometimes, but was
Speaker 1: that the case? Was that actually what happens, and just
Speaker 1: how unscripted is it now compared to back then? That's
Speaker 1: hair fright. I mean, there was a lot of scripting,
Speaker 1: in part because the officials who were working on this,
Speaker 1: and I was the American official, there were French, German,
Speaker 1: Japanese and others. We had a general idea what our
Speaker 1: heads of state wanted. We had a general idea of
Speaker 1: how the countries, the major economies and furniture powers should
Speaker 1: work together to deal with the problem and we move
Speaker 1: things ahead. But the final deal, the final arrangements, were
Speaker 1: not just what was in the communicate, although that was important,
Speaker 1: but in the minds and in the part pics and
Speaker 1: in the uh future pursuits of the leaders that they
Speaker 1: were going to work together and stay in touch with
Speaker 1: one another and try to get out of this together
Speaker 1: and so therefore it was not just the words but
Speaker 1: the general cooperative attitude um of the leaders, and we
Speaker 1: don't have that now. The last G seven we had
Speaker 1: a big discussion over communicate language. The U S didn't
Speaker 1: want language, any protectionist language. And we know these leaders
Speaker 1: are at odds on everything. Britain's having its own problems
Speaker 1: that the Prime Minister is really not going to be
Speaker 1: focused on G seven issues UH and calla Merkel German
Speaker 1: Chancellor is now going to be sort of in her
Speaker 1: and the end of her period of time as Chancellor.
Speaker 1: Macron is working very hard and really does have a
Speaker 1: strong leadership view, but has a lot of pressures internally. UH.
Speaker 1: Premister Abe has played a very constructive role in moving
Speaker 1: things ahead in in Asia, but now he has got
Speaker 1: a yen that's rising. He's not happy with that at
Speaker 1: the time he wants to put on UH consumption tax.
Speaker 1: And of course the United States, which really doesn't know
Speaker 1: whether there wants to be the leader of the motor
Speaker 1: lateral liberal economic order or in America first, which is
Speaker 1: protectionists and is disruptive of that order. And others think
Speaker 1: the United States is moving in the latter direction. Which
Speaker 1: means it's hardly going to be the leader of a
Speaker 1: constructive G seven process. Just about a minute here, I'm
Speaker 1: wondering from your perspective, we're talking a lot about monetary policy,
Speaker 1: but how the focus really is shifting to fiscal stimulus.
Speaker 1: From your point of view, what is the one thing
Speaker 1: that fiscal policymakers could do that could help the economy. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the policies that could really help the economy
Speaker 1: are not so much additional government stimulus of the kind
Speaker 1: we had in two thousand and eight, for instance, uh
Speaker 1: and some countries already have big budget deficits in probably
Speaker 1: are not gonna be able to do that. The US,
Speaker 1: I think, would just be adding to debt, probably not
Speaker 1: boosting the economy. I think the restoring some sense of
Speaker 1: confidence in the outlook, dealing with the levels of uncertainty
Speaker 1: that have arisen as a result of trade wars, as
Speaker 1: a result of the potential threat of a of of
Speaker 1: currency competition or currency wars. If the leaders could move
Speaker 1: ahead in a constructive way to reduce trade and investment
Speaker 1: tensions and avoid threats of new tariffs, and reduce the
Speaker 1: tariffs that have been imposed, particularly by the United States,
Speaker 1: of late that would help, and of course a resolution
Speaker 1: of the Briggs that issue would would help as well.
Speaker 1: But it's always great inside and we get it so often.
Speaker 1: I should not complain about EA and I shouldn't be
Speaker 1: complacent about it. Bob Homas, great to see you, as
Speaker 1: great to have you with us the Kissing Device chair
Speaker 1: then joining us ahead of the G seven. This is
Speaker 1: a treat here. We uh are good friend Brian Weezer.
Speaker 1: He's a Group M president for business intelligence. He's been
Speaker 1: covering the media, uh, internet, technology space, advertising space for
Speaker 1: years from all sides and uh and we've got him
Speaker 1: here this morning. Brian, thanks so much for joining us
Speaker 1: on the phone. Um, you know, I think I'd like
Speaker 1: to start with the deal that you and I and
Speaker 1: every other media investor has been kind of waiting for
Speaker 1: seemingly for years, which is this Viacom CBS merger. Looks
Speaker 1: like they're getting back together. What does this mean for
Speaker 1: your side of the street, Madison Avenue advertisers? Do they
Speaker 1: even care? Well? Yeah, first all, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: I do think that they care because it does uh
Speaker 1: concentrate a little more inventory, which in this context is
Speaker 1: probably a good thing on balance, it things like, you know,
Speaker 1: via Colm has a product called has a number of
Speaker 1: what they call advantage of products UM, and being able
Speaker 1: to apply those across CBS inventory. Being able to run
Speaker 1: a campaign across the combined CBS by a com inventory together,
Speaker 1: which is hopefully something that happens, is probably an incrementally
Speaker 1: good thing. It's not a game changer by any stretch,
Speaker 1: but that's positive. It's and at the same time, the
Speaker 1: concentration of of ad inventory doesn't meaningly alter the dynamics
Speaker 1: conterms of who has what power in the industry. CBS
Speaker 1: was already one of the first prices you would go
Speaker 1: to spend money because of the broadcast network. Via Colm
Speaker 1: was already important because um, you know, they could sell
Speaker 1: a lot of inventory cheaply. UM. I think the bigger
Speaker 1: implications are sort of what comes next, Like do they
Speaker 1: keep Simon and Schuster and then or not? And then
Speaker 1: do they sell it and get some uh have some
Speaker 1: capital to do something else? It's interesting, Um, do they
Speaker 1: double down on their studio um and then at the
Speaker 1: same time double down on what CBS all accesses or
Speaker 1: do they try to become this arms merchant of content
Speaker 1: uh and try to replicate what Warner Brothers was, which
Speaker 1: is to say, every company second davorite supplier of content. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't know that they can do both, by the way,
Speaker 1: but but the implications of the industry will follow from
Speaker 1: what they choose to do once they figure out what
Speaker 1: they're going to do. Brian, I find it so interesting
Speaker 1: this transformation that's been going on from cable to online
Speaker 1: and digital and streaming, and as an advertiser as to
Speaker 1: try to try to understand how to best reach consumers.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering, from your perspective, which platform is the
Speaker 1: further along in term of uh creating an advertising platform
Speaker 1: that is really accessible and effective with consumers. Oh, I
Speaker 1: mean the oldest, one of the older ones, that broadcast
Speaker 1: television is probably still that thing. And it is. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the reach of broadcast TV is still in parallel. Um.
Speaker 1: Nothing comes close. And on top of that, the um,
Speaker 1: you know, the impact of cites on emotion, the pairing
Speaker 1: of the content brand with an advertiser's brand. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know it's no mistake that you know, a more
Speaker 1: most extreme example, I could point to something like Apple,
Speaker 1: the advertiser last at check the almost only advertised on
Speaker 1: broadcast TV and outdoor billboards, right, and which which computer
Speaker 1: company has a brand left? Right? The Apple? Yep, exactly.
Speaker 1: So I mean, so, Brian, you think about it here. Um,
Speaker 1: one of the things that inst this is that Viacom
Speaker 1: had that. I thought it was pretty interesting and it
Speaker 1: doesn't get a lot of play. When we think about streaming,
Speaker 1: we think about Netflix, all the subscription driven uh streaming
Speaker 1: services again like Netflix or Hulu. But Viacom bought this
Speaker 1: company called Pluto TV and it's I think it's what
Speaker 1: it's called advertising streaming video on demand. Tell us about
Speaker 1: kind of that market, and do you think that's a
Speaker 1: growing viable market for the entertainment sector. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't think of it as anything particularly different. It's
Speaker 1: just a bunch of video inventory that's supported. In fact,
Speaker 1: I often find myself watching Bloomberg on Pluto when whatever reason.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Well, right now, it's funny. I'm
Speaker 1: streaming the Bloomberg on my Overexfinity, the Comcast service, and
Speaker 1: if that was down for some reason my password wasn't
Speaker 1: working or whatever, I can go and watch it on
Speaker 1: Pluto for free. Now Viacom has some inventory there, so
Speaker 1: they're just running ads on programming that comes from Bloomberg
Speaker 1: in that case, and there's a couple of hundred other channels,
Speaker 1: many of which also run on traditional TV. So I
Speaker 1: wouldn't think of it as necessarily anything overly different. It's
Speaker 1: just primium video inventor. One thing. I'm wondering though, when
Speaker 1: you talk about cable TV and how that still is
Speaker 1: the best distribution network in terms of power and reach.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering, though, if the time has changed, the sort
Speaker 1: of thirty second spot, whether you're seeing it compressed, how
Speaker 1: is that sort of evolving. Yeah, I mean in a
Speaker 1: traditional TV format, Uh, it really hasn't changed much at all. Um.
Speaker 1: That said, I think that there's this idea that you
Speaker 1: should be able to create video assets for digital environments
Speaker 1: where maybe inside of a new speed and thirties second
Speaker 1: add just won't work. You need assets that can be
Speaker 1: you can work in maybe two seconds, if not six. Um.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, it's a very
Speaker 1: kind of add I actually think of those sorts of
Speaker 1: adds the evolution of rich media. If you go back,
Speaker 1: you know, to the dawn of the Internet, you had
Speaker 1: simple banner ads, right, which were just straight up display ads. UM.
Speaker 1: As technology became better, as a connections became factor, you
Speaker 1: had moving images on those banner ads, and then as
Speaker 1: time progressed, you could have video elements inside of his ads.
Speaker 1: And now we're at a point where in the same
Speaker 1: place where you would have consumed a banner ad, there
Speaker 1: might be a place where you could row your cursor
Speaker 1: over it and then a video ad would pop up.
Speaker 1: It's a very different proposition because you're not as an advertiser.
Speaker 1: You're not pairing sight, sound, and motion of the content
Speaker 1: with your brand. You're not borrowing brand equity in the
Speaker 1: same way. For whatever reason, the brand equity that a
Speaker 1: consumer attaches to the content doesn't translate to the brand
Speaker 1: the advertisers brand in the same way in that context.
Speaker 1: Right if I watched bloomber and I see a video ad,
Speaker 1: I may associate the quality of the programming I've just
Speaker 1: seen with the brand who's advertising. It doesn't always translate
Speaker 1: as well for whatever reason in another environment. So back
Speaker 1: to the point of the two second add or a
Speaker 1: sick second add you've got a very different objective in
Speaker 1: terms of what you're trying to do and what your
Speaker 1: business school is and learning. Again, at the first point,
Speaker 1: Brian we San, thanks so much for joining us and
Speaker 1: giving us a good chunk of your time this morning
Speaker 1: talk about what's going on in the world of media
Speaker 1: and how advertisers are interacting with all the new media
Speaker 1: out there. Brian is a Group M global president for
Speaker 1: business Intelligence. We appreciate his time, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting to see, but if you look
Speaker 1: at the dollars flow in the digital media, there's just
Speaker 1: no let up. So even though there's Facebook issues and
Speaker 1: data privacy issues, brand security issues, and you would think
Speaker 1: brands might pull away from some of these platforms, that
Speaker 1: the data just doesn't show it. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio