Being employed by one of advertising’s giants used to mean stability. But if recent events are any indication, being employee #34,789 at a huge company that could restructure anytime doesn’t feel as secure as it used to. Meaning that scrappy 5-person agency your friend from uni started is looking more appealing every day (because if the founder has actually met you, that has to count for something, right?). In reality, every type of company has its risks, especially now.

- Charlotte Ellis, Editor ♡

Hmmmm y'all may be focusing on the wrong thing though. Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, Grindr and new startups are putting tens of millions into generative AI features to counter swipe fatigue and stagnant growth. These platforms hope that smarter match algorithms, curated suggestions and AI-driven experiences will make dating feel less tedious and more meaningful. You know, rather than just another endless swipe cycle.

Incumbents like Match Group are experimenting with personalised recommendations and profiles. And then you've got the AI-first contenders, who promise new ways to spark connections without the old grind. But analysts warn that AI alone won’t fix the core user experience. Because better matches need to actually feel better, not just look more polished. Whatever, it’s not going to stop Trevor from messaging me to “sit on his face” or Kyle posing with a fish in his pics.

In 2025, protest policing in the U.S. increasingly became spectacle rather than crowd control. We saw dramatic deployments and choreographed showdowns that felt aimed at deterring dissent as much as restoring order. Rather than de-escalating, aggressive crowd-control tactics turned demonstrations into a kind of political theatre. This created a narrative about strength and control that often overshadowed the underlying grievances.

This marks a shift from traditional management approaches to an era where protest encounters are for the cameras. And they're just as much about shaping public perception as public behaviour. Yeah, you read that right. The cops are using protests for content. So if you’re protesting, know you’re part of their marketing agenda whether you like it or not. 

Honestly, these two have become the Ross and Rachel of tech companies. But this week, Apple and Google have finally made their relationship official. On Monday, Apple announced it's partnering with Google to use Gemini AI models to power a more personalised version of Siri. After spending the past year testing options (including OpenAI and Anthropic), Apple landed on Google's tech as "the most capable foundation" for its Apple Intelligence features.

You might be wondering why two apparent rivals would team up. But this is classic "co-opetition." Google gets access to Apple's massive iPhone user base, which will make Gemini the go-to AI model in consumers' minds. And Apple gets to stop trying (and failing) to build frontier AI models itself and can focus on user experience instead. It's also a clear signal that these tech OGs aren't keen to let the new kids on the block (like OpenAI and Anthropic) pull the rug out from under them.

Happy for these two, but this deal sure looks a lot like the search engine arrangement that landed Google in antitrust hot water not long ago. We'll see if regulators have a problem with this twosome in a couple months time.

-Sophie Randell, Writer & Charlotte Ellis, Editor

A big, confusing, tumultuous oyster with dozens of options and no handbook.

Now, the fun part: looking for a job in an industry that just wiped out 4,000 jobs in a single merger announcement. Welp. 

If you've been paying attention (or listening to me harp on at any point at the end of last year) you'll have seen the DDB news. One of the most iconic agency brands in advertising history folded into TBWA alongside FCB and MullenLowe as Omnicom and IPG, merged into one giant holding company blob.

This might make you think twice about joining a small agency, where it feels like hundreds of jobs can vanish overnight when its parent company decides to "streamline operations."

But before you rush toward the perceived safety of a massive holding company, let me ask you this: do you really want to be employee #47,362 in a bureaucratic machine where you'll never even glimpse the C-suite, let alone learn anything from them?

Both options are terrifying in their own special ways. So how do you actually decide? That is where I come in, dear. I’m here to help. Hold on to your seat.

What you get: Direct access to founders and senior creatives. You're not separated by twelve layers of management. You're actually in the room where it happens. You'll wear multiple hats, which means you'll learn everything fast. Your work actually moves the needle and you see the impact immediately. The culture is tight-knit (for better or worse), and scrappiness breeds creativity in ways big budgets never will.

What you sacrifice: Job security (obviously). No fancy training programs or clear progression paths. The big agency name won't be on your CV. Resources and budgets are smaller. Pay might be lower. And yeah, when that one major client walks, things get real, real quick.

What you get: Structured training programs and mentorship frameworks. Big brand recognition for your CV that opens doors later. More job security (in theory, until the next merger). Bigger budgets to play with. Clear progression paths. You won't be scrambling to keep the lights on.

What you sacrifice: Being a literal number in the machine. Bureaucracy hell where getting a simple idea approved requires fourteen sign-offs. You may never meet anyone above your direct manager's manager. Slower learning curve because you're siloed into one specific function. Your brilliant idea gets diluted through so many layers it comes out the other side as beige mush, often unrecognisable to the project you poured your own blood, sweat, 150mgs an hour of caffeine, and tears in the storage room when no one's looking. 

How do you learn best? If you need structure and formal mentorship, holding company. If you thrive in chaos and learn by doing, small agency.

What's your financial situation? Can you stomach the volatility of a small agency potentially losing a major client? Or do you need the relative stability of a holding company paycheque?

What do you want your CV to say in three years? "I worked at BBDO" opens certain doors. "I helped build a 15-person agency from the ground up" opens different doors. Both are valuable, just differently.

Are you more scared of irrelevance or instability? Small agency = higher instability risk. Holding company = higher risk of becoming invisible and irrelevant.

Do you want to specialise or generalise? Small agencies force you to generalise. Holding companies let you go deep in one area (media planning, creative, strategy, etc.)

No clear mentorship structure.
Vague answers about growth opportunities.
Leadership that can't articulate the company vision.
High turnover (ask how long the average employee stays).
Clients in industries you genuinely don't care about (trust me, it matters).

Some people thrive in the chaos of small agencies. Others need the structure and resources of holding companies to do their best work. And plenty of successful careers involve doing both at different stages. The real question isn't "which is better?" It's "which is better for me right now?" 

Because today, with AI reshaping the industry, holding companies consolidating, and independent agencies flooding with talent fleeing corporate bureaucracy, the only wrong choice is not choosing at all.

So pick one. Learn everything you can. And if it turns out you chose wrong? That's fine. You're not a tree, you can move. Hello. 

Just maybe keep your LinkedIn updated, yeah? Kisses! 

-Sophie Randell, Writer

In the skit, the jokers sit in a waiting room under fake names and personas, each trying to make the others laugh without laughing themselves. The moment that sparked the trend unfolds when one joker is caught ordering a pizza, only to immediately launch into an over-the-top attempt to deny it, delivering the now-iconic line, “I would never order a whole pizza for myself… you guys have to believe me.”

The exaggerated denial, paired with the increasingly awkward tension in the room of strangers, turns the scene into chaotic comedy. Now, creators are using this audio to dramatise relatable embarrassment. Think situations where you’ve clearly done something questionable, everyone knows it was you, but you still refuse to claim responsibility. For example, when you order McDonalds twice in one day and it was the same delivery driver. Or when you've just received your 26th clothing package of the week. Or even when someone confronts you after you “accidentally” called them 10 times when you were drunk.

Start with the sound. Now, the key is to be specific, so try to think about oddly niche moments that make viewers think, “oh no, that’s definitely me.” Use on screen text to set up the situation before the audio hits, then fully commit to the dramatic denial once it starts.

A few ideas to get you started:

-Bella Vlasich, Intern

😂Yap’s funniest home videos Insane conversation with the uber driver
✨Daily inspo Lock in like Marty Supreme
😊Soooo satisfying Oddly satisfying photos for perfectionists
🍝What you should make for dinner tonight One pan chicken shawarma with roasted garlic sauce

We get it. Creating content that does numbers is harder than it looks. But doing those big numbers is the fastest way to grow your brand. So if you’re tired of throwing sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks, you’re in luck. Because making our clients go viral is kinda what we do every single day.