Marcus Johnson (00:04):

Hey, gang. It's Friday, January 30th. Gadjo and listeners, welcome to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast. I'm Marcus, and joining me for today's conversation, we have Gadjo Sevilla, our senior analyst for tech and AI, based in New York. Hello, sir.

Gadjo Sevilla (00:18):

Hey, Marcus. Happy to be here.

Marcus Johnson (00:20):

Thank you for joining us. We'll be joined by Jeremy Goldman a little bit later to talk about media and advertising, but Gadjo's here to give us the AI and tech angle. We'll get to our topic in a second. We start, of course, with the fact of the day.

(00:36):

All right. What is the tallest dinosaur in the world? What was? The tallest dinosaur was likely the Sauroposeidon, which could reach ... Speaking of tall dinosaurs, my chair just started to lower by itself. Speaking of tall dinosaurs, the Sauroposeidon, unlike myself, who's now a foot smaller because of this old computer chair, could reach 55 to 60 feet tall. That's four times taller than the giraffe. Gadjo, giraffes are impressive enough. If I saw one of these, I think I'd black out. Four times taller than a giraffe. It could stick its head through the sixth floor window of the building. So next time you're six floors up, look out. That's how tall. That's how tall they are, yeah. You'd be nauseous, wouldn't you? I guess tall people aren't more nauseous than people closer to the ground. Wembanyama's got to feel more nauseous than most people.

Gadjo Sevilla (01:56):

For sure.

Marcus Johnson (01:58):

When you fall, it just takes forever. Sorry, what were you going to say?

Gadjo Sevilla (02:01):

I think it probably gets annoying when the smaller dinosaurs start bumping into it, just because it's so big, right?

Marcus Johnson (02:09):

You'd think so, yeah. So it's the tallest. That's big, but it's not the heaviest. I found that as well. The heaviest dinosaur, widely considered to be the Argentinosaurus, a massive titanosaur with estimates placing its weight between 70 to 100 tons. That would be the weight of 15 African elephants combined, or nearly 60 cars. It's the weight of nearly 60 cars. They might not notice. That sounds like a horrible time to be around, doesn't it? Terrifying.

Gadjo Sevilla (02:47):

Yeah. Was it vegetarian? How did it-

Marcus Johnson (02:49):

Good question. Yeah, I don't know.

Gadjo Sevilla (02:52):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (02:52):

On a vegetarian diet-

Gadjo Sevilla (02:54):

How many fields do you eat a day?

Marcus Johnson (03:03):

No wonder they're not here anymore. Ruined the planet. They just ate everything. I don't know if it was ... Was it an asteroid? We'll never know.

(03:09):

Anyway, today's real topic. President Trump's second year, how will the administration impact media and advertising? But first, technology.

(03:23):

All right. So we're going to start with how the administration impacted tech and AI in 2025, and then we'll look at how it impacted it this year. I was saying to Gadjo before, I don't really like lookbacks, but I think with an administration ... If you do look back at the last year, it gives you a pretty good idea of how the next couple of years are going to go. Looking back on other things, I don't think it can be as interesting because things can fluctuate quite a lot, but I think with an administration, you kind of get a sense of how they're intending to govern. So what stood out to you with regards to the impacts made to tech and AI in 2025?

Gadjo Sevilla (04:02):

Well, not new anymore, but the administration's relationship with Big Tech seems to have solidified around a number of things. And I think the biggest evidence of that, I suppose, is AI hardware. Now, the US still dominates in that area. We have Nvidia, we have AMD, we have Intel as well. The US government, I think, attempted to bail out Intel. They wanted to take a 10% stake in that company, which not too far ago was the leading maker of processors.

(04:47):

As for Nvidia and AMD, they got into export licensing. To a certain extent, there was regulation around where their high-end chips could go and where they couldn't. And as a result, I mean, there's high demand for AI chips everywhere. We know that. I mean, Nvidia's got a backlog of orders to fill, but what we were seeing from the administration, they're starting to pick and choose how much, where these chips are going to go, which is really unusual, if you consider ... That's usually a decision made by the company and its board, but they've had to toe the line.

(05:42):

Another thing they did, which was unusual, was they created lower-performing AI chips that fall under the limitations so that those could be sold to China and other markets. So I mean, if you think about it like cars, they sold maybe last year's model, and that's just to keep supplies moving.

(06:12):

So all of that is very unusual. You hardly see that happen because for these companies, they make money on innovation. The next greatest chip is what they expect to sell out of. And that's when you're going into data centers, that's what those are designed for, the latest, most performant AI chips possible.

Marcus Johnson (06:37):

So what do you think the landscape in terms of chips would've looked like had this not been mandated?

Gadjo Sevilla (06:46):

I think there'd still be supply concerns because there's such high demand and there's only a handful of chipmakers. And really, Nvidia's at the top of that. They would've been able to sell more and to more countries without having to worry about are we getting into a geopolitical situation. So if their job was just to fulfill orders, taking out the politics aspect of it, then I think it would've been better for their bottom line because they're there to do business and to profit from it, but instead, they've had to work with the administration and figure out a way to please everybody at this point, which can go a long way. If you have the backing of the administration, everything's good there, but at some point that affects your bottom line because you could have sold 30, 40% more if you didn't have to play along with the game of who gets to import what supplies.

Marcus Johnson (08:09):

Do business where. Yeah.

Gadjo Sevilla (08:10):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (08:10):

You mentioned supply concerns. We've heard this a fair amount when it comes to the AI space. Is this something that we expect ... It sounds like it's going to get worse before it gets better, but do you see it getting continually worse, continually worse, just because the demand is so high and they can't make these fast enough? Or is it just because this is a very new space, once companies get used to developing AI chips, then the supply will catch up with the demand? What's going on here and how long will it last?

Gadjo Sevilla (08:39):

I think it's going to get more complicated. A short-term view, it's affecting more than just AI hardware. So the price of RAM chips, which is memory, which they also need for data centers, that is escalating at this point, where we're actually seeing the PC market say the prices are going to go up, but the specs are not ... You're not going to get another 16 gigabytes of RAM in the next computer, and that's going to slow down sales. The situation right now is that NVIDIA still leads the pack by far. So until there's ample competition, it's going to remain constrained for the foreseeable future.

Marcus Johnson (09:29):

And this isn't exclusively because of tariffs. This is just the more processing power you need, the more expensive the chip.

Gadjo Sevilla (09:38):

That, and at the rate that they're building them, they're promising all these ... Just in the US, all these AI data centers. Those are sold on the promise that there will be enough chips to populate all that. Those chips are not yet here. I mean, for the most part, our AI ecosystem is running on a current generation of chips, and maybe older generation of chips. To get to the next level of AGI and advanced AI, they're saying that they need more power, more energy.

Marcus Johnson (10:22):

Our colleague, Jacob, Jacob Bourne, he's one of our analysts who writes for AI and tech as well, for long-form content. He was saying that with the chips, one of the problems here is obsolescence. If you bought chips three or four years ago, they're so outdated because the cycles are speeding up and speeding up. Is that, for you, also one of the major concerns here?

Gadjo Sevilla (10:46):

Yes. And older chips tend to consume more energy. They run hotter, they need more water, they need more cooling. The newer generation has higher performance, but also takes less energy to run. So that's-

Marcus Johnson (11:06):

Sustainable, yeah.

Gadjo Sevilla (11:08):

They're more sustainable for the long term. And really, that's where you want to go because AI's power and energy and water demands are really escalating. And for the communities that have to host these data centers, that's a wider impact than just the business. That's communities that you're stepping on.

Marcus Johnson (11:34):

Impacting, yeah. Let's talk about 2026. In what ways do you think the administration is going to impact tech and AI this year?

Gadjo Sevilla (11:41):

I mean, there could be different levels to this. I think there will be more deal-making country to country, I suppose. That could open avenues for US tech companies to expand, with the blessing of the administration, but that's not going to solve the current shortages. Also, the worries about overspending on AI. It's an industry-wide thing, but I think it's a global concern because right now a lot of investors are like, "So where's the return on investment for all the AI money that we're spending?" So I think that's going to continue to be a topic.

(12:41):

Maybe, again, more deal-making and possibly ... Depending on how things go, which is unpredictable and day-to-day, perhaps the path to China might open up a bit as a negotiating lever. We don't really know, but it's not going to be business as usual in the sense that these companies can operate without the oversight. So I think that's just going to continue, for sure.

Marcus Johnson (13:15):

Tell me a bit about regulation and legislation. Anything that you are paying attention to there, in terms of this administration in 2026?

Gadjo Sevilla (13:27):

I think one thing to look out for maybe is AI regulation. So from what we've seen in the past years, there's a loosening towards allowing AI to be a bit more ... To accelerate the development of AI. So less on restricting the ethical aspect of it, but more on pushing for the innovation which, of course, most AI companies are embracing because it is, after all, very competitive. So although no frameworks have actually been put into place, unlike in the Biden era where they were really looking to clamp down certain aspects of development, I think we're seeing the results of that too. Faster model releases. Not all of them are great. Some have to backtrack, but definitely that's translating to competition, accelerating at the faster pace.

(14:40):

I think that's the biggest thing we need to look out for. And as for the rest of tech regulation, it depends. I mean, a lot of those cases are still being observed, being studied, but no major moves have been made, from what I've seen.

Marcus Johnson (15:03):

We've seen California lead the pack a lot of the time when it comes to regulation. Do you expect to see something coming out of California in terms of breaking away from the other 49 states and trying to develop something? A lot of the time, they're developing the data privacy rules. A lot of the time, they're developing something more akin to what's happening in Europe. Do you expect that to be going on this year for AI?

Gadjo Sevilla (15:25):

I think so. I think California will continue to push the envelope. And clearly, a lot of the companies are from there, so there's an enforcement angle to that. We've also seen states actually push the envelope on things like privacy around minors and their data as well. And I think that will continue. So it's likely going to be at that level more than at a federal level.

Marcus Johnson (15:58):

Yeah. Yeah. That's all we've got time for for the first half. Gadjo, thank you so, so much for joining me. We're going to talk about a bit of media and advertising with Jeremy, but Gadjo, we'll let you go. Thank you so much.

Gadjo Sevilla (16:08):

Thanks again. Nice talking to you again. Take care.

Marcus Johnson (16:11):

We are now joined by senior director of content, living in New York, Jeremy Goldman. Jeremy, thank you for joining the show.

Jeremy Goldman (16:17):

Yeah, I'm excited for this.

Marcus Johnson (16:19):

Absolutely. And so we've asked you to join because you wrote the section of the report looking at the second year of the second term of President Trump's administration and its impact on a bunch of different spaces. We just covered the impact on tech and AI. You wrote the impact on media and advertising. And so similar to Gadjo, we ask you to start by looking back into 2025. And I was saying to Gadjo before as well, it's because with an administration, you get a good sense of how they're intending to govern, based on that first year. And so what stood out to you the most in terms of the Trump administration's impact on media and advertising in 2025?

Jeremy Goldman (16:58):

There's been a lot of, I want to say, thumb on the scale type of maneuvering by this administration, realizing that there can't be a third Trump term. So how do you really think a little bit in terms of what is your legacy, and a lot of that has been shaped by power moves and power brokering, let's say, behind the scenes.

(17:20):

We saw a lot of that this year with some of the furor over some of Jimmy Kimmel's comments that then caused him to get canceled, taken off-air, and then returned to air, and some of the strength that the FCC has to enforce some powers in a way that it hasn't before. So I think that in a weird way, that actually ... We've talked a lot about linear being on the decline. In some ways, that could be yet another headwind for linear, is worrying about what it says in a way that digital platforms don't.

Marcus Johnson (18:00):

Interesting, because it was taken off the air and then came back. Opening monologue on YouTube hit record numbers, I think, right?

Jeremy Goldman (18:08):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (18:09):

So being taken away from one place, showing up in another, we've seen that, I guess ... Tucker Carlson left one old legacy media, all of a sudden popped up on digital platforms. So it does seem as though there is another place for folks to go, and I think you saw an example of that last year.

Jeremy Goldman (18:30):

Yeah, absolutely. And it becomes really a fascinating decision about ... So what do you do? Obviously, you're selling your added inventory all over the country to people who might have all different political views. And it's very difficult to say you need to be aligned with A versus B or whatever, but if you're a media owner, you have to think about ... This is the regulatory environment that you have to play ball in. So we saw that a little bit with Paramount and its subsidiary, CBS, think a bit about, "Well, we have this Skydance merger that we want to get through." And at the same time, there was some furor over a 60 Minutes segment. So what do you do in that situation? Do you try to come to a settlement in order to move forward, or do you believe that that's antithetical to your values or whatever and you're not able to do that?

(19:25):

And so we really have seen a lot of media players just acknowledge this is the media environment right now. And there's a lot of unpredictability, I would say, tied to that. But also, a lot of people who are practical capitalists and have to figure out how do you exist in a environment for a few years while waiting for whatever next administration you might have to deal with.

Marcus Johnson (19:50):

So as an advertiser, and we talk a lot about getting as close to real time as possible in terms of looking at how your advertising's doing and trying to fiddle with the dials and adjust accordingly. Normally, those adjustments are relatively small, incremental adjustments in the moment as quickly and as easily as you can. Is it advised ... Is it possible for advertisers to be having full-blown contingencies? We're putting our dollars here, but if something major happens that is out of our control because of certain decisions that are being made, full pivot, this is where the dollars should actually go instead.

Jeremy Goldman (20:31):

Yeah, it's a really good question. I think that there's been this moment where people said, "Oh, well, you can't have brand safety because you're going to run ads. Of course you're going to run ads on social, and there's very low levels of brand safety there in relation to some other channels. So what's the point?"

(20:47):

And I mean, I would actually argue brand safety matters and you are always exposed as you're trying to run ads in different environments, and you don't know necessarily how brand-safe those environments will be or if one particular platform will be out of favor with the administration, things like that, but just because something is difficult to manage doesn't mean it's not worth doing and having those contingency plans in place.

(21:16):

I will say, a lot more dollars, per our forecast, are moving to programmatic channels, which means that you're able to quickly shift spend in a way that you weren't able to before. So I think it's a really good point to be thinking about if something does happen, and also where are the places that something could occur? A perfect example is that if you were advertising around Jimmy Kimmel, that was somebody who was making political jokes all the time. So you knew that, depending on who you're trying to sell to, that could be a place that promotes a little bit less safety. So it's not like something becomes less brand safe out of the blue. There are hints, and you should be willing to move spend around when needed.

Marcus Johnson (22:01):

Yeah. Let's look at 2026. What are some of the things you're expecting to see, impacts you're expecting to be made, from this administration in terms of where it affects media and advertising?

Jeremy Goldman (22:13):

So I would actually lean into what you just said about that agility. I will make a bold prediction that's not bold at all, which is that we are going to be talking about one or two things that we never thought we would be talking about that could be a little bit of a political football, as evidenced by the fact that, Marcus, did you think that you would be talking about Greenland ever? I think there are a lot of people who thought that you just might never say that.

Marcus Johnson (22:41):

The only reason we talked about Greenland, I think it was a fact of the day, is that on the map it looks bigger than it actually is. I think it's only about the size of the Democratic Republic of Congo, but it actually looks like it's as big as North America. It's just how maps are drawn. It makes it look outsized.

Jeremy Goldman (22:57):

Wow. I didn't want to get us off-topic, but I thought it's still pretty actually ... I think it's bigger than the Congo, but I could be totally wrong. I don't know how big the Congo is.

Marcus Johnson (23:06):

Yeah, it's still ... Yeah, because I think Africa as well looks like it's the same size as South America, but Africa is one and a half times as big, just because of the way maps are drawn. But Greenland, it is really sizable, but that's the only time I've talked about it, although I would love to visit.

Jeremy Goldman (23:23):

But we didn't think that we would be speaking about it that much. And I didn't think that I would be writing about Jimmy Kimmel having record viewership on a digital platform. And I think that there are going to be certainly a few mergers and acquisitions that haven't been publicly reported on where there are going to have to be some concessions that are made to essentially play ball with this administration. I think absolutely. I can't tell you which companies those are, but I think that that will certainly happen. There's been a lot of signals that this is an administration that's going to look favorably at things like that.

(24:00):

And I think that that's one thing to really pay attention to, is do we wind up seeing more consolidation from a media standpoint simply because the administration has said that it wants to see that. It wants to be seen as very pro business. And if that happens, is there, let's say, a platform that was previously somewhere that you were very comfortable advertising and now you're not, right?

Marcus Johnson (24:26):

Yeah. Is there a specific part of media advertising that you're looking at closer because of this administration? Is there a certain company, a certain format, certain deals that are in the works that you're probably paying closer attention to?

Jeremy Goldman (24:46):

So I would spin that question a little bit and just actually talking about the idea of CEOs being major evangelists of their company, I think what you're going to see more and more is certain people change a little bit about what they say or maybe refrain from public commentary, especially when they have some business that they think is in front of the administration. We've seen a bunch of companies where they had their leadership give donations to the inauguration of Trump, the second inauguration. And there were some people who said, "How can you do this? Is it aligned with your values?" Or whatever. But if you have a certain degree of business in front of the administration, then you're just trying ... It's not necessarily a political thing. It's just more so this is who my partner is for the next few years. And I do suspect that people will either say things differently or refrain from saying things at all because they're concerned that it's going to wind up coming back to bite them to some degree, if they have some business in front of the administration.

Marcus Johnson (25:54):

Yeah. I think it's a great take. The CEO's role evolving into something more akin to a diplomat, so to speak.

Jeremy Goldman (26:00):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (26:01):

Yeah. Perfect. Jeremy, anything else you're paying attention to in 2026 in terms of impacts?

Jeremy Goldman (26:06):

Yeah. I will say, I think that as of the time of this recording, we're still waiting to find out about the Supreme Court and Trump's tariffs. And I think that that is a big deal because there are a lot of different advertising categories that we are watching closely that, depending on what the Supreme Court says, you could see ad spending go up or go down on a category basis, depending ... Obviously, consumer goods. That's one example where, if demand slows because products become more expensive, which they largely do under a tariff regime, we think that ad spending will go up if there aren't tariffs in place because ... Though it makes a lot of sense. Those CPG firms believe that they're going to sell more of their product and their ad dollars are going to be better spent. So the Supreme Court striking down the tariffs could actually be quite good for a number of different categories, but that's all TBD, so stay tuned.

Marcus Johnson (27:07):

Yeah. A lot is, but thank you so much for talking to us a bit about what you expect, but we'll just see in 2026. That's all we've got time for. So I thank my guests again. I'll say thank you first to Jeremy.

Jeremy Goldman (27:19):

This was fantastic. Thank you.

Marcus Johnson (27:20):

Absolutely. And of course, thank you to Gadjo for joining us earlier. The whole piece is on emarketer.com. Pro+ subscribers can check that out. President Trump's second term. If you search that, it'll pop up and there's coverage on how it will impact banking, finance stuff, how it will impact retail, and some other stuff as well. So check that out.

(27:43):

Thank you so much to the production crew, of course, Lance helping run this episode. And thanks to everyone for listening in to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast. Subscribe, follow, and leave a rating and review if you can. We'll be back on Monday, talking about the three big questions surrounding Netflix at the minute. Happiest of weekends.