Technology
Services
Resources
From the debut of the industry's first fully AI-generated commercials to yet another dramatic pivot in Google’s cookie deprecation timeline, 2024 brought some transformative changes to the advertising industry. The theme of transformation will continue to define the landscape in 2025, with four key trends poised to have profound impact on brands and agencies:
To explore how these trends may impact brands and agencies in 2025, we brought together four industry veterans to share their insights and predictions. Their discussion covered everything from how changes in consumer behavior are driving the need for increased personalization, to how advertisers are managing fragmentation in CTV and commerce media, to the most effective applications of generative AI.
Consumers’ search habits are evolving with the rise of social search and the introduction of AI chatbots. Do these shifts illuminate any broader trends advertisers should look out for in 2025?
Amy Rumpler | SVP, Search and Social Media Services, Basis: I think one of the broader trends these new search behaviors demonstrate is the importance of personalization in media and content. What’s interesting about social search and AI chatbots is how precisely they deliver information: Whether you’re seeking inspiration, a product, or an answer, the information returned can be incredibly exact. As consumers get used to that level of specificity, I think that’s going to drive a new era of urgency around personalization in media strategy, targeting, and content.
Additionally, these evolving search behaviors could reshape the customer journey across media channels. With search becoming increasingly accessible across various environments, the once-complex path to purchase is changing. The ease and availability of these new search experiences—from inspiration to purchase—may lead to a more consolidated customer journey, with less context-switching and more time spent in a single environment. If this shift continues, it could impact how advertisers approach media planning, frequency, and touch points, as they’ll need to adapt to a seamless, all-in-one search-to-purchase experience.
April Weeks | Chief Investment & Media Officer, Basis: I agree with Amy: Personalization is growing more and more critical. As marketing and media become more personalized, I believe we’re going to see the customer journey condensed, because it’s going to be a more relevant journey. And as advertisers increase relevancy through personalization, they may see the impacts of consumers searching less broadly and less comparatively, because the message that’s received by the consumer is more tightly aligned with what they searched for.
I would also say that these shifts underline the broader trend of advertisers needing to view performance and brand marketing more holistically. The value of brand is coming back in a much bigger and more meaningful way, and advertisers need to start asking themselves how they can successfully incorporate and balance brand and performance across campaigns. I believe we’re going to see this with search, and especially with social search. That’s where personalization comes into play, because you’re reaching consumers in an environment that’s relevant to them, and it’s an opportunity to share a brand message while also driving the call to action.
Katie McAdams | Chief Marketing Officer, Basis: To April’s point, the term “brandformance” has been popping up in a lot of my conversations lately. (Our industry just loves to create these buzzwords, don’t we?) Brandformance highlights the idea that treating brand and performance marketing as separate areas isn’t the most effective way to approach your strategy, especially when budgets tighten. Advertisers need a more integrated approach. For example, in the search space, budgets once focused solely on bottom-funnel KPIs can now support broader brand-building goals. Rather than reserving digital display for brand awareness and search for conversions, marketers should consider how paid search can contribute to brand-building too.
This shift raises the question: What metrics should we use to measure the effectiveness of a brandformance approach? Advertisers will need to reevaluate the metrics they use to ensure they align with both brand and performance objectives.
AW: I agree—those metrics will certainly evolve. We’ll likely see engagement and attention metrics play a bigger role, serving as potential proxies for conversion. For instance, if engagement or attention increases over time, how does that impact the path to conversion, whether it's a purchase, sign-up, or another action?
What trends do you expect to see in the CTV space in 2025? What challenges are advertisers looking to solve when it comes to CTV?
Grace Briscoe | EVP, Client Development, Basis: We’ve seen a significant increase in buying CTV through private marketplaces (PMPs), and I think that will continue. One reason for this is the confusion that surrounds CTV inventory: The same ad slot can be sold by multiple vendors, and often through five or six different channels, which leads to a lot of duplication and sales channel confusion. As a result, advertisers are focused on deduplicating and determining which inventory is unique and valuable.
In addition, many brands and agencies are working to align their linear TV and CTV investments to maximize reach and manage frequency across both channels.
In terms of challenges, measurement and attribution are major concerns. Brands are eager for better systems to evaluate the effectiveness of their CTV investments.
Overall, while I don’t anticipate any radical shifts or dramatic new capabilities in connected TV in 2025, I do think we’re seeing true evolution and maturity in the channel. As that continues, it's just going continue to drive more adoption.
AW: I agree with Grace: 2025 is going to be the year when advertisers begin to figure out how to use CTV and linear together. Marketers will develop an understanding of how the two channels can complement one another, as well as how to evolve measurement. Measurement is a huge challenge because of fragmentation, but the industry is starting to make good inroads.
Fragmentation is still part of the CTV ecosystem, but I believe the industry is becoming more aware of the benefits of coupling CTV with linear, and the opportunities to manage frequency and creative sequencing. Advertisers are starting to see how the interplay between the two can create a better advertising experience for consumers.
What will it take for CTV to reach its potential?
AW: Right now, there’s just too much inventory in too many places. With linear TV advertising, things are pretty simple: If you want to buy Fox, you know where to buy; if you want to buy CBS, you know where to buy. To Grace’s point, the fact that the same inventory is available through many different outlets creates a lot of confusion. For CTV to really capture its full share of spend and potential, it’s got to get a become cleaner and easier from the supply side, which will also help streamline measurement.
What are the main sentiments you’re picking up on in your conversations about AI with brand and agency leaders?
AR: Many of the people I’ve been speaking to have been expressing a strong sense of fear. There’s fear around giving up control over parts of the campaign process that AI can automate, and I think in some cases that fear is very real and valid. This is particularly true in highly regulated industries like healthcare, where advertisers must navigate strict regulations when interacting with consumers. Clients worry that generative AI could create content that not only feels off-brand but could also conflict with legal requirements. I think a lot of advertisers still feel considerable hesitancy around giving up that element of control.
And content generation is only one part of that: There’s also apprehension around the AI embedded in advertising networks, like Google’s PMax and Meta’s Advantage+, where AI decides which audiences see ads. This shift—moving from hands-on, granular targeting to relying on AI for audience selection—is a big leap that many advertisers aren’t fully comfortable with yet.
AW: Everyone likes the idea of generative AI in terms of what it can do to produce large amounts of content or creative very quickly and, potentially, more cost effectively. But advertisers are concerned because AI models are only as good as the data that's going into them, and there's a lot of uncertainty around the quality of data that's feeding these models. It’s likely going to take time to develop models that can be fully trusted, and then fears will lessen over time. But right now, it’s still fairly early to be relying solely on generative AI to produce materials that could potentially have a notable negative impact to a brand if the targeting's off the mark or if the content doesn't strike the right tone.
AR: I do think advertisers are still willing to test these applications of AI, and I think most brands are testing them in some form or fashion. But to April’s point, I agree that most advertisers aren’t ready to go all in on AI quite yet.
KM: On the creative side, I wonder if there’s going to be a perception shift around the quality of AI-generated creative. For me personally, when I see an ad that has some elements that were obviously AI-generated, my first thought is that the marketing team cut some corners to create it. I could see a consumer perception issue emerge where leaning too much into genAI (rather than investing in real photographers and other creative professionals) could potentially weaken a brand’s image or reputation.
AR: I was in a call with a creative vendor last week and they made an interesting point about that. They showed us some more subtle applications of AI for creative content generation, like an ad for an auto brand that featured a real photo of a vehicle but used AI to place the car in various settings. I thought that was an interesting way to think about how to test and utilize genAI in ways that help to scale out and personalize creative assets, rather than using it to generate creative assets from scratch.
KM: Totally—my team did a similar thing with a campaign we have running right now. We’re using generative AI as a tool, not a replacement, to our existing creative resources. It’s a way to help scale the creative.
AW: To bring it back to the trend of personalization that we talked about in the context of consumers’ search habits, personalization has historically been very expensive for brands. This is one area where AI could be really helpful when done correctly—you can strike the right balance of delivering that personalized experience that helps deliver better outcomes, but more effectively and efficiently from a cost standpoint.
How would you predict advertisers’ sentiments around AI will change from now through the end of 2025?
AW: As an industry, we are often quick to hype up anything new. After the hype-up period, we go through a time of learning, testing, and seeing the results. Then, once we understand the efficacy of whatever the new thing might be, it often gets woven into the campaign process and becomes part of the industry ecosystem.
If I were going to make a prediction about where advertisers will be in that cycle in 2025, I think there'll probably be more openness around testing of AI applications—especially with brands needing personalization within their marketing—because brands are still going to be pressuring their agency partners, particularly their creative partners, to find cost-effective ways to deliver at scale. So that's where more agencies may want to lean into generative AI: to help satisfy the volume of creative needed, but also try to do it in a cost-effective way.
The rise of retail media networks (RMNs) and commerce media in general is introducing even more fragmentation and complexity into an already fragmented and complex digital advertising landscape. How do you think this will impact how advertisers invest in RMNs in 2025?
AR: Commerce media operates differently from CTV, where inventory is widely available in various places, as Grace mentioned before. Accessing RMN inventory is much more complex, especially with well over 100 major RMNs now in operation. For brands with products on multiple physical and digital shelves, navigating which RMNs to partner with, how to access their inventory, and whether to use self-service or managed services is a significant challenge for both agencies and advertisers.
This complexity impacts advertisers' ability to invest in these networks effectively and influences their media planning strategies. Some brands aim to be present across numerous networks to maximize reach and drive sales, while others are consolidating their efforts into two or three networks that offer the most value—not just in ROI, but also in added benefits like in-store experiences or exclusive ad products.
I also think it’s impacting how advertisers are thinking about media planning. Do brands need to be in 15 different places because these networks exist, or should they pick the three that are going to give them the most incremental sales when it comes to moving product? We’re seeing a mixed bag of advertisers going one direction versus the other: Some that want to be everywhere, and make sure they’re taking advantage of the broadest reach possible to move sales. Others are starting to take the opposite approach, consolidating their efforts into the two or three biggest networks that can give them the most value.
Take Walmart or Target, for example. These networks leverage both in-store and online channels, offering a growing suite of ad products, including in-store experiential options. This aligns with the 'brandformance' approach, as these networks create omnichannel ecosystems that go beyond bottom-funnel objectives. By tapping into their customer base and delivering personalized ads across various touchpoints, RMNs support advertisers in engaging customers throughout their journey. This shift reflects broader trends toward personalization and full-funnel strategies, with many advertisers beginning to embrace these holistic opportunities rather than focusing solely on point-of-purchase ads.
AW: I think advertisers should ask themselves, “What is a retail media network?” Over the past 18-to-24-months, there's been such a proliferation of these networks that almost any entity that has first-party or CRM data is throwing itself into the RMN ring. It reminds me of the very early days of ad networks, where new ad networks were springing up overnight, but the quality of the targeting and the audience varied greatly.
To Amy's point, I think a true RMN looks like more of the full advertising experience offered by networks like Walmart and Target. As the proliferation of these networks increases, it’s going to be critical for advertisers to discern between networks that can deliver real value and consumer experience and those that can’t.
GB: I also think that with this explosion of retail media networks and the fragmentation we’re seeing in that landscape, we are going see some winners and losers. Advertisers are only going to have so much tolerance for buying across all these separate walled garden platforms, so the smaller ones are going to get cut off of buys eventually as advertisers start consolidating to the ones that have the most sophisticated capabilities and ROI. I just don't think the marketplace can tolerate that kind of fragmentation for very long.
Would you say the same considerations are true across all verticals and industries in commerce media, beyond retail media?
AR: Yes, the same considerations will hold true outside of retail media. Just in terms of the measurement aspect of fragmentation in general, the more networks and properties you buy across, the more pressure you put on your measurement framework to make sure you have consistency in how you’re looking at performance and the customer journey across those various partners. As you start to consolidate and understand those handful of partners that are truly providing the most incremental value to the brand, that takes a bit of pressure off the measurement side of things.
I think we’ve seen a similar thing in social. When social exploded five years ago, there were eight or nine major networks and apps that developed. But today, most advertisers only invest in two to three at the most as part of their core media strategy. Because the more you invest in, the more you have to have a really good understanding of how customers are moving between one property to the other. Generally, I think that’s why even in social we’ve seen a bit of contraction in partner mix on plans recently, and folks are only investing in a couple of key platforms. They’re still seeing other options as opportunities to test and learn, but not necessarily as mainstays of their marketing plan.
AW: I think it comes down to effectiveness versus efficiency and finding the right balance. As Amy mentioned, advertisers put a lot of pressure on their measurement frameworks by investing in all these different platforms. At some point, the question is, “Are you effective when you’re over-rotating on your investment?” Probably not.
It’s critical for leaders at agencies and brands to have a thorough understanding of how these four trends are likely to develop over the next year. Check out Reality Check: The 2025 Advertising Trends Report for more insights advertisers can use to gain a competitive edge.