In this issue of Sunday Strategy, we look at four stories to think about next week, including: Agencies Stuck Between Billable Hours & Outcome Pricing, the Problem with Humanoid Robots, The Risk of Picky Eaters, AI\u2019s Real Risk to Workers and Where Do Fans Fit Into This Summers\u2019 World Cup?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, we have ads from: Zillow, Folgers, Childhood Cancer Canada, Hargreaves Lansdown and ZIP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The existential crisis facing large advertising and media agencies has put their billing model under scrutiny. The billable hour, an invention that turned advertising agencies from ‘working dogs’ to ‘lap dogs,’ as Ogilvy’s Rory Sutherland once claimed, is increasingly unfit for purpose as agencies grapple with automation, variable technology costs, and pressure to demonstrate innovation. While selling time was always a stopgap measure, traditional scope-based contracts now face pressure from AI platforms and automation that can deliver similar work faster and cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Agencies from WPP, Publicis, and S4 Capital’s Monks are attempting to shift clients toward subscription-based models – charging recurring fees for access to technology and talent rather than hourly rates. The appeal is clear: to focus on output and ongoing partnership rather than time tracking. However, agencies’ natural aversion to outcome-based pricing reveals the tension: finding a way to sell impact without tying compensation to results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Subscriptions may be a viable stopgap, but like SaaS products that thrive on recurring revenue, the conversation inevitably shifts to deliverables and measurable value. The question becomes: what am I actually getting for this monthly fee and why shouldn\u2019t I swap? New pricing models for agencies may simply be delayed outcome-based pricing, creating a transitional phase before clients demand that payment correlates directly with performance. The only question is how long agencies can maintain this middle ground before being forced to either prove their value or lose the client – forcing old \u2018lap dogs\u2019 to get back to work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read More Here.<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite a cultural predisposition to build robots in our image across sci-fi movies and TV shows, do we actually need humanoid robots? Companies and governments betting on them seem to think so, but the wider market seems unconvinced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n China’s 2026 Spring Festival Gala featured dozens of humanoid robots executing martial arts, comedy sketches, and acrobatic flips. The country shipped 14,500 humanoid robots in 2025\u201490% of global production\u2014while companies like Unitree offer models at $13,500. Tesla’s Optimus, by contrast, shipped only 150 units last year at higher prices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality is that humanoid robots aren’t yet doing real work. In China, they’re rented as retail greeters for $300\/month or deployed at government functions as showpieces. The Chinese government is the largest buyer, purchasing units to meet political technology targets. When applied to factory work, humanoids operate at 30-40% of human speed carrying boxes. The often-cited vision of general-purpose robots handling varied household tasks remains far more challenging. When even simple food delivery robots are suffering attacks in public<\/a>, a humanoid version may face risks outside of productivity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The few productive deployments come from automakers like Mercedes and BMW testing robots in their own factories\u2014essentially building their own demand rather than waiting for a market to emerge. There is no doubt potential exists. However, with massive production capacity already built through government subsidies and companies like Tesla touting it as a key opportunity, the window is narrowing to prove commercial viability before supply massively outpaces demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read More Here.<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The myth of the \u2018picky child\u2019 when it comes to food hasn\u2019t always been accepted. In fact, as the NYT piece below notes, children in 19th century America ate oysters, organ meats and bold spices – not because they were forced but because it was normal practice. Picky eating in children emerged only after solutions for picky eaters and \u2018child pleasing\u2019 created an expectation. However, the food or advertising industry didn\u2019t invent pickiness in a vacuum, but they took a wider parenting tension and normalized the idea that children\u2019s tastes were narrow. By the time Kix rolled out \u2018Kid tested, Mother approved\u2019<\/a> as a cereal slogan in 1978, we had taken the idea as a timeless constant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The risk in this two-tier approach to food is that children are locked into a consumption pattern that persists into adulthood. Once a child grows up eating only foods engineered for palatability (with narrow flavor profiles, consistent textures and predictable sweetness) their actual capability to engage with diverse cuisines doesn’t expand naturally. New foods must either adapt to these limited palates or leverage cultural cachet to overcome the dietary boundaries we’ve built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The growth of sushi among Generation Alpha in the US<\/a> simultaneously proves the myth of children’s pickiness and reveals the force needed to overcome learned behavior. Sushi’s success required presentation adaptation and pop culture presence to break through. This presents an irony: many US sushi rolls for children anchor against familiar foods (cream cheese, tempura, teriyaki), the opposite of how sushi is introduced in Japan. Japan’s food culture and national food education law (shokuiku)<\/a> ensure children build palates through gradual exposure and expansion, with challenging flavors normalized and sushi as an everyday part of this progression. In many ways, new foods must come find children in the US, whereas 19th-century American children (and their modern Japanese counterparts) seek out food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read More Here.<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The real threat from AI may not be the technology\u2014it’s what we’ll do to feel safe from it. With founders framing the market as in a “once in a generation moment,,” workers are accepting more justification for 996 work culture (9am-9pm, six days a week) and 72-hour weeks. Hustle culture may have shifted from aspirational rallying cry to survival mechanism.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n As AI’s potential and impact remain unclear across sectors, this uncertainty leaves workers scrambling to compete – with each other and with AI itself. The result is a race to prove human indispensability through sheer volume of work, regardless of sustainability or output quality. This worker uncertainty means the largest risk from AI isn’t the technology displacing jobs; it’s how anxiety about displacement reshapes work culture into something more brutal and less human.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read More Here.<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This week\u2019s cancellation of the planned New York\/New Jersey \u2018FIFA Fan Zone\u2019 for the World Cup, planned to be hosted at Liberty State Park isn\u2019t just another misstep in the run-up to the tournament, it’s a metaphor. The park\u2019s backdrop of the Statue of Liberty and proximity to MetLife stadium aimed to give access to American and international supporters who couldn\u2019t go to the games themselves. With ticket prices more than 5x what a seat cost in Qatar 2022, and a 5-10x increase on the original proposed starting price of $21 in the tournament bid<\/a> – fan zones look to play a critical role in the supporter experience. While the $5m allocated to the NY \/ NJ fan zone will be spread around the state, both FIFA and many host cities still don\u2019t have concrete answers on what fans can expect from a costly tournament. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With soccer as the third favorite sport in the US<\/a>, and supporters engaging with different club leagues across the Men and Women\u2019s game<\/a>, the 2026 World Cup could be another milestone in Soccer\u2019s journey in the United States. While excitement for the tournament is still there (500m ticket requests globally were lodged)<\/a>, in person fans left out of a way to engage with the game can squander a generational opportunity for the sport in the country. The lack of engagement looks to limit fan experiences and brand opportunities, as the passion behind the \u2018people\u2019s game\u2019 needs \u2018people\u2019 to deliver its full impact. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The energy fans and brands are looking for around the World Cup may not be found in stadiums. Instead, it could be found in bars, neighborhood watch parties and communities. With little time left and less organization than expected, it may be down to fans to find a home for the tournament across the US, vs. finding a place within it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n2.) Who Actually Wants Humanoid Robots? <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
3.) The Risk of the \u2018Child Pleasing\u2019 Food. <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
4.) AI Anxiety and Toxic Work Culture. <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
5.) Where Do Fans Fit Into the 2026 World Cup? <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n