Last week we attended The Drum Predictions 2026 in London. Beneath all the talk of AI, transformation and sweeping predictions for the year ahead, one pattern kept emerging; we're all seeking familiarity, reassurance, and whatever stability we can grab hold of, in the face of massive uncertainties from technological, economic and geo-political upheaval.
Last week we attended The Drum Predictions 2026 in London. Beneath all the talk of AI, transformation and sweeping predictions for the year ahead, one pattern kept emerging; we're all seeking familiarity, reassurance, and whatever stability we can grab hold of, in the face of massive uncertainties from technological, economic and geo-political upheaval.
Across sessions with Rory Sutherland, Daniel Hulme, Mark Ritson, Tom Goodwin and Chris McCrudden, that insight revealed something most of the industry isn't saying out loud: we're solving for the wrong variables.
We're building agents to serve rational systems in an irrational market.
WPP's AI Chief, Daniel Hulme, described 2026 as the year of ‘agentic commerce’, AI systems with true purchasing agency, making rational decisions based on price, features, and availability.
But three other speakers had views that directly contradicted this;
Rory Sutherland opined that that human behaviour is not purely rational, and that businesses destroy value when they optimise only for efficiency. He contends that subjective human experience, perception, and emotion are central to brand value, yet are routinely undervalued because they are difficult to measure.
Tom Goodwin added that in an era of ‘global weirding’ and media-driven distrust, brands matter more than ever as navigational shortcuts. Consumers don't want data, they want big, safe brands that won't let them down.
Mark Ritson asserted that the fundamentals don't change. Mental availability and distinctiveness remain stable levers, regardless of how technology evolves.
The tension was clear; if we optimise marketing for machine logic, we abandon the exact territory where brands command pricing power. Edelman's research confirms that trust is now the primary purchase driver in volatile conditions. Machines can't shortcut that.
The "pornography of change" is masking what actually matters
Ritson's prediction, as usual, cuts through the hype; the industry habitually overstates how different each year will be. His prediction for 2026? It will look dramatically like 2025!
This connects to Hulme's governance framework. The risk isn't that AI is revolutionary, it's that organisations are deploying it without asking;
→ Is the intent appropriate?
→ What if it over-achieves its goal?
→ Are we automating the wrong things?
Tom Goodwin reinforced this; "We're moving toward 'arithmetocracy', where it's better to be wrong and rational than remarkable and imaginative. Attribution is ruining our jobs because it chases credit rather than creative success."
Edelman's tipping points research makes this concrete; brands are one tone-deaf, AI-generated moment away from permanent trust damage. AI doesn't understand when silence is the strategic move.
The warning is that over-reliance on data and AI, without human judgment, leads to optimising for the wrong things, chasing measurable efficiency while missing the unmeasurable consequences; brand damage, lost trust, cultural irrelevance.
The real differentiator isn't technology, it's knowing what not to automate.
Hulme was blunt; "Technology is commoditised. Your differentiators are data, talent, and leadership."
Ritson added that AI's immediate impact in 2026 won't be in creative or strategy, it will be in synthetic data and operational efficiency. The job market is tightening because AI is already "chipping away" at headcount.
Tom Goodwin warned that AI produces the "average of the internet". It helps weak advertisers make okay ads, but does nothing to help the world's best brands do better work. We're entering a "slopocalypse" where feeds are full of mediocre, machine-generated content.
Rory Sutherland added a key counterpoint; marketers solve second-order chaotic problems and the moment you confidently predict behaviour, you change it. AI gives you speed, it doesn't give you the ability to sense when assumptions have shifted or when the market has reframed. This requires human judgment, cultural fluency, and the courage to act on incomplete information.
The conclusion that no-one is spotting
The industry appears to be treating AI adoption and brand fundamentals as parallel tracks. They're not. If you automate without clarity on what makes you distinct, you get efficient mediocrity. If you deploy agents without understanding irrational buyer behaviour, you optimise for rational variables that don't drive preference. If you build systems without governance around intent, you fast-forward sameness.
Chasing the "pornography of change" without protecting foundational strategy leads to misinvestment.
What this means for 2026
Our view is that the market will separate into two types of organisations:
→ Those using AI to do more of what's already commoditised (content volume, attribution, optimisation).
→ Those using AI to amplify judgment, protect differentiation, and navigate volatility.
The difference won’t be better technology, it’ll be how well brands answer the questions in front of them:
- What makes us distinct in a world where execution is commoditised?
- Which irrational buyer behaviours should we protect, not automate away?
- When is strategic silence more valuable than algorithmic participation?
- What happens if our AI over-achieves the wrong goal?
In an environment of compounding instability, both consumers and marketers are gravitating toward whatever provides stability.
In 2026 and beyond, that clarity becomes a scarce resource - and clarity of thought and strategic intelligence are things that Rika’s clients and partners value in us, and continue to trust with us.
Talk to us.
