on my list those are the three books i'm reading right now. >> book tv wants to know what you are reading. 's-- or summer reading list at book tv on twitter, instagram or facebook. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. [inaudible conversations] >> at evening, everyone. ..

>> that's all i have and thank you for being here continue. let's begin. [applause] >> thank you for coming, can you hear? >> the mic. >> thank you. can you hear us now? >> how about now, you hear me? all right. press the button, maybe that

works. >> you hear us now? >> all right. perfect. >> so, let's begin we talking a little bit about how you decided this was going to be the topic we're writing your next book about. he writes a book every month or so. >> i cover as mentioned in the introduction the media, and in covering the media, i said i really hadn't spent any time in the advertising marketing world, and yet if you think about is, they are the money, the bank for much of the media. 97% of facebook's revenues come from advertising, almost 90% of google's. without ad dollars, there's no newspapers, much of tv would -- free tv would collapse, magazines, apps, the internet. so, let me follow the money, the old watergateed aage, and learn about the people who live on this planet, advertising

marketing, including this guy sitting across from us, and that is what i set out to do. >> so, those of you when you were read the book, you will recognize that the book looks at our industry from lots of different perspectives, as can follow the money, and what are some things that surprised you from the time you started to the time you ended this process? >> i was surprised at how much, a., how much disruption has been visited on the marketing, advertising, business. i've covered disruption, including some of my previous books, how google, for instance, and the digital revolution has disrupted so much of media. when i did the three blind mice book about the television networks, which came out in '91, they were being disaren't bade new technology which was cable at the time. and you literally could pal pa

by feel the discorruption the fear that existed. think it's handle in a much more accelerated rate than i expected in the advertising world. and as you see with all kinds of disruption, at least i've seen when i've reported on disruption, the fear, that anxiety level is very intense among the people in that world. many of the ads i would watch more closely, i have even more disdain for than i did before. the famous coca-cola ad that ends with the mad men episode, the children on the hill singing the song, every time i watch that ad, i get goose bums, and yet i hate it. and so my head and my heart are at wore with each could why die hate it? because it doesn't tell you anything but cocoa late.

just feel manipulated by it. now, unlike, the brilliant ads for volkswagen or -- don't have to be jewish to love leavy's rye bread. brilliant ads. but a lot of the ad i'm not as enamored off. the the privacy, i as the world out advertising moves toward we have to figure out ways to reach people and permanentize ads and because -- personalize adds and because we know so much about you we can personalize the ads. that elevate the privacy issue and when i learned how much they actually do know about us and what that tryinged, the privacy concern, was another thing that surprised me. . >> there is a -- while you were writing this booker, changed the title from the original title to what it was called. >> i don't even remember what

the original one was. >> called "disruption." new complain to the audience why "frenemies." >> it's pop yap liederred by martin sorrell, he often used that phrase and when you do a search for where at the phrase began, it began with walter winchell in 1948, and he was talking about how the soviet union was a frenemy of the united states weapon needed them to partner with us and yet they were our competitor. when you look at the advertising world, one way it's being disrupted is by series of what i call frenemies that is to say the people who use -- the publishers who you sell your ads to, or basically say, i want to

buy your ads, "the new york times," she ""chicago tribune"," i et cetera, increasingly they have been advertising agencies and they try and bypass the agency and go directly to the client. pr agencies, at newspapers, say we have to get a new revenue source and they become advertising agencies. consulting companies, like delloyd, used to be your accountant, or mckenzie, your adviser, saying we have to get into the advertising business so they become your competitor. google and facebook, with all the dat they have. the agencies sell them enormous amounts of advertising, they increasingly are going directly to the client and disrupting the agency business. and the clients themselves, the unileaves, proctor and gambles are saying, rather than pay high or steep fees to agencies, let's do more stuff inhouse, and we'll be great, we'll be in effect an

agency. but as the question you asked me, the biggs frenemy is the public and if you think about it, this device you have in your -- we all car, our cellphone, just transforms the world we live. in the most personal device, as personal as your purse or your wallet, you don't lend it to people. you keep it with sometimes people go to sleep with it. you're on it 80 times a day, on average. and suddenly the thought that you're going to be interrupted by someone making a pitch to you, it just becomes annoying, which is why 020% of americans have what is call an ad blocker on their phone, blocking advertising. and if you think about how little way like advertising in general, look at what pvr says. if you record a program on your television set, according to

nielsen, 55% of the people who record a program skip the ads. and then you think about netflix. no ads. and you don't have to wait for thursday night to watch your program. you can watch as much as you expand no ads. , hbo. the biggest frenemy is the public and at the public is empowered through the various technologies, including add blockers, to basically intrude on your business. >> because everybody intruding in our business you had some emotional us signed with the people in our business, one was insecurity. can you talk more that. >> generally true about if your business is being disrupted, and you're aware of it, if you're conscious, you're insecure, full of anxiety, and i found there

are -- what i found -- i thought about this most graphically when i was doing a book called "googled" in 2009, and i would interview the tv and the newspaper, magazine people, and others who -- legacy business being disrupted, there are two sides of people. one type of person is a person who liens back and says, oh, woe is me, digital is a real problem and we have to figure it out, it's really hurting my business and i'm not quite sure what to do with it. then these other person leans forward and basically says, a problem is an opportunity, and i'm going to figure out how to deal with this. i'm questioning to throw stuff up against the wall and see what sticks. if i can't do traditional advertising on a mobile phone i'm going to figure out some other way to reach those people. that's what someone like rashad does every day, and leaning forward. and so one of the reasons i

chose as one of my -- as actually my major character in the book -- i have a number of characters in the book, including martin sorrell, the former head of the wpp, including the head of cbs, trying to figure out the whole legacy business can reposition itself as something new. carolyn everson, the head of advertising for facebook, but my major character is a man named michael cassen, he started a company called media link and he is a connector, a consultant, and everybody hires him, clients hire him. agencies hire him. publishing companies, google and facebook. and people hire him in part because they're insecure and full of anxiety, and he gives them a sense of security, i'll work it out, help you work it out. you want to meet the facebook people and talk to them? i'll set up meetings with them. and he does that and becomes this delish character because he

is literally work used to cover politics when i was younger, his a power broker, when someone -- one of his prospective clients said to him at one point, michael, why shy trust you? you kiss everybody. and he said, yeah, but if you want a really good kisser, you hire me. >> you talked about how fast our industry is being disrupted, and we had the chance of speaking to each other at different event two weeks ago, and one of the questions, if you look at the book, about half the characters in the book, since he started writing the book, have lost their jobs. >> two, i think. >> well, they lost their job, resigned, put to pasture or whatever it is. it's probably 25 to 30% but i like to say half.

the key question was, have you written an outdated book and is it still relevant. >> actually, one of the reviews -- i guess "the new york times" review said that as well does it date the book that martin sorrell is now again and my answer is, no. this is a book about change and it's very natural that people would be gone, and life goes on. it doesn't change the fact that martin sorrell started the largest and most successful holding company 33 years ago. he is an historic figure in the advertising words and doesn't cheng the fact he was ousted from his job, and -- orer lynn gottlieb, another character who is head of -- was the head of group m, the largest media buying agency, stepped down. i predict head would. he said he would but i don't think people leaving dates the

book. at least i don't feel that way. obviously some people do. so. >> one perspective of looking at the book, why this is a book that started about advertising and marketing, to why i encourage people to read it, is it affects all industries because to a great extent, many of the characters -- he's going to forget how some of the characters don't exist miami -- exist anymore -- >> i want to forget everything. i'm moving on to another planet. >> so you have the are -- martin sorrell who founds the world's largest 150,000 person holding company by buying a wire and plastic company as a shell company, and over the last 25-30 years, has formed this huge corporation. he does not have his job. the person who actually created what is likely to be the most important media operation in the

world, which is ervin good gott, retired. a major character in the book is a lady called carolyn everson and facebook and then we have had cambridge analytica and there's an entire section on general elect and comstock. if you go through -- i looked at it again and basically said, he -- >> he's too smart. >> i said, i am about to lose my job, too. everybody mentioned in the book are dead. job-wise, not dead in reality. what it actually says is that every industry, regardless, is completely disrupted and not just advertising and marketing there wasn't a company that did not have that and some of the bigger issues which you see today, which you also allude to which i would like you to talk about because it's one of the things that are anything this

world, i is how some of this, which is the advertising and me money, changes what we see and potentially could have impacted who got elected, which is number one. number two, is who do we trust when in reality i can know almost anything about you regardless of what you think you have privacy, or no privacy, which is what you sort of bring up, and, three, what is the role of a free press if big press companies are now either owned, just by rich people who can afford funding the press, like a jeff bezos or the -- so the implication of this from broad society, which you allude to in the book. >> one of the last chapters of the book i talk about the election of trump, and how he upended some of the truisms we associated with. one is that advertising is so

important. he did very little advertising. to his going on victory march. two is how hard it is to get free press. one thing you look at, he succeeded in getting free press, actually a bad commentary on the press. much too much press attention and if you were one of those 18 or 19 republican you would be enraged how much coverage he got versus what you got. so, that was really interesting. then obviously his ability to target was much better than hillary clinton. he knew about wisconsin. and michigan, and for reasons that are still inexplicable to me she did not and didn't visit those states. so, he actually in some wayed abandoned the conventional wisdom about advertising, and she, of course, thought that you trot out bruce springsteen and jay-z and it would happenout and

in affect reinforced the elitist argument he was making against her. say all that with no sympathy for donald trump, i might add, but nevertheless the truth is he outdueled her. when i think but rich people owning the media, one of the problems, as someone who cover this media and has for a long period of time, most newspapers are dying, and they will continue to die. "the new york times," which has all its eggs in one basket, single newspaper. don't have nye holdings right now. -- any other holding right now. they're doing okay. they're making money but not a lot of money. they have a great family. they really care passionately about the news business, unlike the ban craft crofts who -- the bank crofts who owns "the wall

street journal" and sold it. as the dividend dry up, what happens to "the new york times"? i worry but that. we know what happened the toe the "washington post." tea family said we can't sustain the "washington post." they found a rich surgery he daddy in jeff base sew who has done a great job in, a., high hiring agreed yesterday -- a greetedder to and allowing him to -- -- hired reporter and do a brilliant job and he is supporting it. and that is one of several different model. you he the nonprofit model like pro publicca but when like at the newspaper world i say, my god, i really worry about the future. take "the new york times." "the new york times" makes its money -- digital subscription up to 2 million right now.

great. but they marry their money from the print newspaper and one of the problems you have in the world -- just cite two facts that illustrate the fundamental economic probablelet a paper like "the new york times" has. people who read in the newspaper -- the print newspaper, spent 34 minutes a day on average reading the "new york times" newspaper. that's a lot. people who read "the new york times" online spend 35 minutes a month. so if you're an advertiser, you say, i'm -- people cannot spend a lot of time with my ads. so therefore i'm only going to pay roughly 10% or 15% for the same ad in digital as i pay for in the print newspaper. so, that is a basic problem. the ""times" can get around that problem because they have an affluent reddership and just increase the price of

subscription, so can the "the new yorker" and the financial times and the economist, the" chalk tribune "can't," the detroit news "can't and the" st. louis dispatch "can't and that's the problem we have. i worry about that. who is going to cover local governments? and keep politicians honest. it's a real future question. the third question? >> the future of -- the future of content, privacy. >> the -- one thing that people rishad do is they strategize and think but the future. they say in order to reach people he we have to -- particularly on the rein phone, can't feel like an ad or a interruption. has to feel personal, like the service of some kind to them. some because we know so much about you, we have all this

data, we can personalize it. so you're walking -- we that the gps, we can follow you where you are geographically and you're about two blocks away from a barney's a department store where you bought a sports jacket two months ago. i if you walk two blocks to that store today we'll give you 20% off on your next jacket. now, how is ken going to respond to that is? ken going to say, this is -- wow, that's a real bargain for me. it's a real be coupon, or is ken going to say, how did you know so much about the? that's a basic question. so, what you are dealing with in a world is the more you can target -- it's a seesaw. the more you can target, the more privacy goes down. the more privacy goes up, the more the ability to target guess down and that is one of the dilemmas and one of the questions becomes, there is a point at which the government says, if they have in western

europe, we have to intervene and create some privacy rules here. and that is something that everyone in the ad business -- i'm not just talk about the agency. i'm talking about the clients and the ana and the four as and the iab, all the advertising organizations, they don't want that to happen. they don't want to have happen what happened in europe which is basically you have to opt in as a citizen in order for them to have data on you. the advertising community likes much more the current system, which is that you have to opt out and anyone who has ever tried to opt out, takes a lot of work. >> what of the -- for the audience, if you use google -- i think everybody does -- and if you have a phone, pour yourself a stiff drink, whatever it your alcohol or nonalcohol of choice.

>> that would be good right now. >> go to going gallon expires to tab at that time gives you your history -- go to google and there's a tab that gives you your history. when i look at mine it could tell me every city i've been to over the last ten years, on which day and what hotel i stayed at. it tracks every single thing you do. and that's all available. every e-mail, eve checkin, every place you walk, because your mobile phone is sending that information continuously, and that can either be creepy or it can be good if you have alzheimer's. don't know. but it's a sort of a thought. one thing that we sort of mentioned in you mentioned this in regard to privacy -- the book starts when you look at the book, with a talk which sets off a trust crisis in the industry. talk about trust.

>> it begins with a -- there was a guy named john menell, former palestineing executive who gave a speech in march of 2015 before the ana, which is the client side of the business, in which he claimed that the -- without a tremendous amount of evidence but nevertheless he made sweeping claims that the holding companies, there are five joint holding companies -- were guilty of hiding the way they make their money from their clients. that's to say they would do things like they will buy time from publisher and either buy in advance and then sell it at higher price to their client 0, buy it and say if you -- if "the new york times" or whatever platform they going go, if you sell me this i'll give you cut rate or we get a cut rate from you, meaning they would take

money under the table. and his claim of that became -- then it launched an investigation, which detective agency k2, former jewels -- used to be -- he and his son started fd sole krol. they began an investigation for the ana and helped unleash a series of agency reviews where the clients said, oh, we better take a look at our agency whether they're doing this to us. and we'd better -- maybe we'll have a review and maybe look for a new agency. and when rishad mentions trust, that became a way of kris alizing the trust issue or the mistrust, and not only are you dealing with frenemies, this spate of frenemies but a level of mistrust where who can you

dust mitchell agency is now my competitor. what are they doing under thible and keeping from me? that came became a way of writing about that and writing about the accelerated disruption of the business and of grow introducing my a main characters, michael cassen. who is conducting these reviews. >> guest: michael cassen's agency. who is sitting at the client's ear as their listening to the pitches of the agencies? michael cassen. what are the agencies saying? they're saying, where is michael cassen whispering in the ear of the client? so gave him enormous power, and which he exploited very well. >> when you started writing this book, you had a particular mindset about things like

advertising, a mindset on the industry and its important and whether there was a future for it. then three years later, what has -- how have you changed and what do you think now about things. >> i feel more strongly that -- one of the things i was interviewed at the four as, the big agency con fab in moisture by bill who runs a big agency called verizon and he said, you didn't celebrate the agency or the advertising business enough, and i said to him, bill, i'm not a cheerleader. i'm a journalist. i don't give out trophies to people. i said but if you really think about it, i am celebrating the advertising industry because i'm saying without advertising, advertising is a great atm machine for all media and without advertising, mump of the media will die, and then there

are those who come along and say, we'll do subscriptions. we'll rely on subscriptions. that's a pipe dream. the one thing that hillary clinton and donald trump aagreed on in 2016 presidential campaign is the american middle class and working clarks the bulk of the american population, their income has been frozen for the last decade. they're already paying an average of roughly 2 of a amongst for subscriptions and that doesn't include things like gas and electricity. the thought that they are going to pay for -- that facebook will no longer be free, that google search will no longer be free, that cbs and nbc will no longer be free? insane. people can't afford it. so, advertising is essential. so in that sense, i am celebrating advertising. i just think a lot of the ads are not very good, and they're

very manipulative. but when i see a good ad, it's great. >> so we open it up for questions but i'd like to basically -- when you look at this book, and since i've read it but not written it, i've read it's couple of times, one was -- because i had a chance to look at is as it was getting ready and then i read it again. this is the story really about the future of probably society in a very strange way in this book, because it says the things that are funding the news, content, utilities and services, are increasingly driven by advertising dollars, which is -- and marketing dollars. if you look at advertising and marketing dollars -- we had a lot of -- had to get a lot of information which you remember back and forth.

it's a $1.5 trillion united states industry. 1.5 trillion. that 1.5 trillion is funding a lot of thingses that we know and which we basically don't know, and as that swings it's going to swing a whole bunch of society. when we think but a.i. and iot that is being funded by advertising. one of the reasons your amazon echo is so cheap is because it is being funds by advertising. and if that suddenly disappears it would be a lot of weird stuff. show to industry does good stuff, just al of us are losers so we have to fine better people run it. that's what the book says. >> another thing i would just add to that, which is that if you go back -- if you're a communist or socialist nation, you generally don't have advertising so the question becomes how does a consumer find out about where to buy things and what things they might be

available out there? and advertising is essential link between buyer and seller. so it doesn't just support media. and facebook and google. it supports a free enterprise system, and in that sense it's fundamental. >> and so we open it up for questions. are you ready for that? >> i am. >> we need have a boom or something. >> right above your head is a boom mic. >> it's coming. >> it is interesting you said that last comment because i was in cuba recently in january, and i noticed there were no bull continueboard and i asked our guide, there nor bull continue boards and she said the government does not want society to become a consumer society. they don't want the people to want things. i thought that was really interesting. >> no. and that is an excess of

advertising. it encourages people to buy things they may not need and that's one of the reasons why socialist or communist countries -- they thought it encouraged wrongful behavior and consumption behavior. >> i want to make an on -- i want to make an observation and have either one of you react it to. i need a little runway here but it ties into a number of the comments made. advertising rests on the premise of consumption, excluding political advertising. we're talking about consumption in order to get people to consume, they have to have two things. have to have the economicker where withall to con excuse me the desire to consume. right? well, we know due to income inequality, and you touched on this a little bit -- fewer and

fewer people have the ability to consume. your point but the subscriptions. so, fewer people have the ability to consume. right? and then on top of that, with climate change, people are starting to think about, die even want to consume in man i don't want to be a consumerrer. maybe i just want to maybe take a lower profile. and so when i conflate these two things i think that's a big existential threat to the advertising city because it's based on consumption and i were can't consume, couldn't afford to consume, don't want to consume, what their implications the 10,000-foot implications for the advertising industry. >> i want to say one thing. credit card debt. people look at the growing of credit card debt. people are consuming even if they shouldn't. so, south of here is another

university, call yard of of chicago, which is where i went. sorry. south of here is the university of chicago, and the university of chicago defined advertising as the economics of choice. which what is very interesting is someone in cuba makes a choice you will have no choice. okay? and my basic belief is when somebody basically decide -- reality is, you have to have choices and i look at it as the economics of information. and one of the key things that increasingly happening is it may not be bow consumption. it may be actually advertising about not consuming. so, for instance, the ad council is working on different things. they work on everything from love has no barriers, smoky the bear and things like that. the big thing they're working on -- i'm helping them in working with them -- is climate change. and the problem has been climate

change has been theoretical and basically been something that will occur in the future and there's no emotion because it has been scientists and polling particulars and other people talking about something that is absolutely real, and now if you actually put advertising behind it, amazing things can happen. what was also very interesting is one of the things that drove -- i come from the agency that created the marlboro cowboy. what draws advertising down or cigarettes down was advertising. and it was basically that only fools smoked. right? that was the advertising. and so it could be for or against consumption. nicking happen. my basic belief is when you make a decision at some global level that something is good and something is bad and take that away from people, you are likely to end up with something very

strange, like north korea. >> this woman ask then. >> i worked for the -- a consumer products company for many years so i actually acknowledge one of these people would watches ads, and my question is, what do you predict will happen to the super bowl advertising strategy on television in the future? >> well, the argument about super bowl ads is that those are some of the few advertisements that people actually watch. i think most of them are pretty awful, frankly. but nevertheless they spend -- it costs $5.5 million for a

30-second spot. eventually television advertising will decline. and it's been predicted -- actually been a surprise it haunt declined faster but hasn't declined but it will. just think about why. people have many more choices and the money -- the advertising dollars are spread out. and people start questioning whether the 30 second ads are effective or not. but live events tend to attract big dollars because people are watching them more intensely. they're not recording them and skipping the ads later. >> super bowl thing made me think of something else. but just ask you, publishists have nations in sweden and countries that are strongly socialist. i don't want -- just curious because how is it handle thread? it's almost portrayed like

there's cuba and the united states but there are these other countries that are socialist and they do have major businesses there and they have a lot of consumes. how does publishists handle to the country. >> the differs between cuba is sweden is sweden is socialist but democratic. cuba is one man rules who decided or two men, whatever it is, one died and one retired so one-man rule. and the reality of it is, the world's biggest advertising market today and the world's biggest consumption market, whether it is automobiles, or movies, or anything, is a little country called china. so, to give you an idea, the reason you'll never see a chinese villain in a hollywood movie is without -- they actually decided, the reason why

in the mars movie it was the chinese who saved them because the chinese actually read these scripts in l.a. now. they. >> they just killed the hbo -- what is the name -- the sunday night comedy show on hbo with china just censored it. >> john oliver. >> just killed -- >> so the script. so the reality is, socialist governments and communist governments are not anti-consumption. they're anti-anybody take away their power. in fact thy like -- in fact they like consumption nice want to distract you so you don't have to worry about other things. >> them democratic socialist countries must like they have more troll. >> they have free enterprise. >> the control that we have to worry about is not them. i believe that the control we have to worry about is the people who control the data. and is the future is basically

about the people who control the data, which is i would be much more concerned about a potential dictator for the world's largest country, which happens to have 2 billion people called mark zuckerberg than anybody else. because you have a 32-year-old person who might be very brilliant but he probably hasn't lived half the life you have since you're all the average age of 32 and controls the future. >> to ad what what he said, if you think back about mark zuckerberg's thought but advertising, he believes privacy is very low, has always been very low as a priority on his scale. >> eric schmidt of google said, there is no such thing as privacy, get over it. this is about 10-15 years ago. but remember, mark zuckerberg has bought every house around him so no one can look into his house.

the same people, right, are very, very strange because my basic belief is if you don't have privacy you can't be you. >> the only good question -- one over the few good questions that members of congress asked circumstanceberg, most of them consider semi illiterate but he asked where are you staying? and he refused to answer the question. because suddenly privacy -- >> for them it's privacy is good for. the individually but not -- therefore you need to be -- the thick remind people, be very careful about what some of these people say because just because you made a billions of dollars in technology doesn't mean you know how to run society, and that is the one i would be most worried about, handful of people and there's seven companies in the world that are determining the future of the world, three of them are chinese and four are american. >> what are they? >> then cent, ali baba and china and they're amazingly much more sophies fix indicate than the

u.s. companies and googling and facebook and amazon and apple here. >> you don't put microsoft in that? >> microsoft much less, one is run by a small indian, but the -- [laughter] >> as is google, right? but the reason is because in effect microsoft is about making tools. is basically about making tools. these other companies are basically driven by advertising. >> not apple. >> not apple. >> the apple issues a little different. apple's issue they're going to go out of their way to try to eliminate the free stuff you get from google because google's advertising funds android, which basically troubles the hell out of them, and outside of the united states, in some rich places, it's ona.m. awe an android world. i keep an apple phone and it's an android world outside the

united states baas most people cannot afford apple. >> you first and then you second, sorry. go ahead. >> the book you quoted an executive, marketing executive at procter & gamble as saying, when we partner with add agencies we get great advertising. when we treat them as suppliers we get crap. is that -- that was a real philosophy at one night time. is that fading? is it gone? if it's gone, it could come back? >> clearly it's fading or faded. mark prichard, the head of the cmo for procter & gamble said that at actually the kaan festival in 2016. and that is a view that is music to the ears of the agency world. but it is not a prevalent view.

i think -- challenge me if you would on this -- i think the level of suspicion and ware where iness and sense of frenal e frenemies is very vivid. >> and there is a -- building on that, the real challenge that mark and others face is that the large advertisers of the past are dying businesses. i'm not saying p & g is a dying business but it's not a growth business and to a great extent, if you look out, i p geez good may have misses the fact it wasn't the most -- the old days it was like i'm manufacturing and going to penal millions of dollars in advertising and going to drag my product now walmart and i got distribution, i got economic scale, everything else. well, dollar club was built on facebook, took away 15 share points without any advertising,

but yet that had a powerful advertising. when you think about adds don't think but the ad yourself seem the single most powerful ad is worth of mouth, which is spread through social media. very powerful ad is sampling. i you've sample al product and like it. that is what is beginning to happen. so amazing companies miss the change in customer behavior and part of the reason they missed the change in customer behavior is they stopped using media, new media, only use old media, right? one of the key things in my business, i can't get a job anywhere else for 36 years, i started using the new media my whole this was, this stuff sucks to use but there must be something in it. that's the being thing we have to think about in the new world order and i think the reality of it is we as -- one people who are in this bookie everybody is down on advertising, besides ken and me, right?

i don't -- >> i don't know about me. >> the last person left. so everybody calls is dinosaurs and acall ourselves cockroaches, which is one of the chapters in your book. >> a lead ay a chapter is. >> dinosaurs die, cockroaches outlive everybody by scour using around and re-invent themself and that's what we have to do i- as people. >> wait for the mikeow phone. >> i'd like to ask you, about the future, having read your book, seemed like you spent a lot of time saying that agencies were gone or on the way out or facing great changes and better -- >> the latter. >> -- figure out what is going on next and they're smart people. they are the people that really

bring good and important information out into the world. and they were the most interesting people often who had big views and little views at the same time. just a side point about things like money. it's just what separates us from other animals, is that we have imagination and we can all agree on some strange concept like money and say, oh, this is something, and we all agree, this is something, when in fact it isn't anything at all other than what we agree it is, religion, government, a lot of things like that. and they hold together when we all agree that they hold

together. for the 70 years -- >> would say to me, the question? >> thank you. i'm coming -- i'm asking but the future. seemed to me when i read the book what you did was condense down and tell a very good story of the first 70 years of advertising and then you talk about this really hot, difficult time that we're in right now where really moving around, and the future is unsure. what is your guess about what is next? >> as i went around -- i did about 450 interviews over the three years for this book, and when i would go into someone's offers with my recorder and my note pad, and i would ask them about the future, and when someone said to me, this is what it's going to be like in five years, it's like when you talk to the stockbrokers and they say, let me tell you what stock will be really hot next year.

you immediately tune out and say, this is a fool. this person really believes that? this is arrogant. so i would want to literally pick up my stuff and sneak out of the office. i don't know what the future is. i'm not arrogant enough to project what it will be the five years. i know this. that one of the reasons why a lot of companies get into trouble, goes back to click ton christianson's innovative del lamp ma, that famous book, harvard professor wrote and said basically you have an existing business that generates money. take cbs, one of the characters in my book is less moonves and cbs, six makes more money today than it did ten years ago. why? their advertising revenues are less than they were. used to be 100% advertising referral knew. now it's 46-47%. but that new revenue stream, which they didn't have when i wrote my book about the, they

have cable companies pay them something called retransmission. this government allowed nat '92. rules were suspended so they're allowed to own and sell programs into sin rick indication, the -- sin rick indication, and the digital companies like netflix and amazon, they can sell to last year cbs general trait $50 million clear profit from selling its library of programming to netflix. but -- so here you are in the short run, doing very well by selling to netflix in a long run, it ignites ignites the inne dill lamp ma because they're building up their -- dilemma because they're building their competition. that's the problem when you're a legacy business you protect what you have now, think short germ say i don't want to divert too much money to this new digital realm when i have -- i'm make midnight from the old realm.

and that is always a problem when you look at companies, and often times they're afraid of blowing things ump. most of these people are managers, not owners, and they're not going to be there in five years or six years. so, they tend to make short-term decisions that are often counterproductive. >> last question and then we'll sign books. >> might not make predictions disk, you can be hopeful and aside from say the "times" or the new yorker or the post, who do you find admirallable, like to see be around and doing something sustainable and enriching ten, 15, 20 years from now? >> besides this guy sitting beside me? >> organization. >> i think -- i mean, i actually am awed just in the news side of the business, i'm awed by what

the "washington post" and "the new york times" does journalistically and they way their chewing on donald trump's leg. i admire that greatly. they're fearless. i also think their doing too much coverage of donald trump. cnn, which has amazing people doing reporting there, and jake tapper, really asks tough, interesting question he, wolf blitzer. cuomo. really smart, good people who are fearless. but when i watch cnn, it's all trump. it's too much and i worry that we're reinforcing the view of the pro trump people that we're out to get trump, and it just too much. even though so much itch is really entrepreneurial and really good. so, i admire a lot of what is going upon in journalism today despite all the money travails we have. and i admire thing -- there's a

character in any book by the name of bob greenberg who is the founder of rga. bob is a guy who rides to work on his motorcycle, has long hair, shoulder length, wears a black cap, and is rpi -- re-inventing the agency and they don't do traditional advertising, and so i think he's amazing guy. he is a venture capitalist, they invest in companies and mentor companies and get a piece of the companies. they do design work, redesigning, does a lot of rafaely wonderful digital ads, guy named gary vander chuck, a lot of people like that are quite extraordinary. the jury is out but i'm interested in the new -- the fellow who took over last year, sadun -- at -- he has a

different vision and how will that work out? i'm kind of curious about that. >> last question here. >> we ask the one in the center, which is you in the white shirt. and then we can have independent questions later. i want to make sure there's enough there's time for people to sign books. >> you mentioned that advertising is the economics of choice, and yet also companies you mentioned were social media companies, and you linked as harnessing the power of people's personal opinions, making that best sell of one person telling another person to use this product. given that and the authoritarian tendencies of both china and the psychological experiments of cambridge analytica, how do you not see us sparring the legacy falling into the leaking be a

company cat wore in how do you not see us falling into some kind of tech know authoritarianism other, their from china or capitalism? >> you want -- >> i want you to go first. >> at the heart of it, you have to believe in a couple of things, which i believe in and they may not be true. the first is, i believe that technology eventually empowers the individual more than it empowers the state. yes, the individual can be manipulated. we can quickly figure out what the hell is going on. i-under you see what google can do. i can use google against it. you've not to stupid. i believe technology is empowering individual more than it's empowering states. yes, they have the same technology but we have in had tanks, right? now we do have that. so i think technology is a slingshot that allows david or daniel to bring down goliath.

so that's one thing basically believe is true. the second one, which is also extremely important, is i saw the people who would not predict the future to this guy, which is the only reason he probably talked to me a second and third time. >> how about five times. >> exactly. i refused to predict because i lived threw lot of this and i can't predict. one thing will predict. it's in not going to be like what we project. >> i'm going to follow that? now. >> now i'll have book signing. how do we do this? there is a sequence? [inaudible conversations] >> let's thank our speakers. [applause] >> the first row -- give us a

second to get arranged and get you -- >> sit here? [inaudible discussion] >> book tv is on twitter and facebook. and we want to hear from you. tweet us, or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com slash booktv. >> here's a look another upcoming book fares and festivals. on august 18th, we'll be live at the mississippi book festival in jackson, with pulitzer prize winning historian john meacham, sal man rustey ands and then from august 31st through september 2nd the decatur book festival? atlanta. on september 1st, live for the 18th year in a row at the national book festival here in washington, dc, with the supreme court justice and madeline al

right and later the baltimore book festival healed the city's inner harbor. for more information about upcoming book fairs and festivals and to watch our previous festival coverage, click the book fairs tab on our web site, booktv.org... you can hear them backstage already right now. we just got our microphones on. for the first person i'm going to introduce is jami attenberg. she's written about sex, technology, design, and urban life for "new york times" magazine. the "wall street journal", the guardian and others