The end of the passive hearing

For decades, the media model has been based on a simple assumption: the audience is watching.

It is exposed to a message, picks up information, possibly constructs a perception. The value of the medium is then measured by its ability to organize this exhibition — touch, repeat, memorize. It is this logic that has structured the entire media economy, from television to digital platforms: more reach, more frequency, more efficiency.

This model is not wrong. It has even been extraordinarily successful. Television has industrialized attention, digital has amplified it, data has optimized it. But it is based on a fundamentally unidirectional vision: the media speaks, the audience listens.

It is precisely this vision that is cracking.

Because what has changed is not just technology, but behavior. The audience is no longer content to consume. It reacts, expresses itself, compares, influences. It no longer simply looks at a message: it puts it in perspective, validates it, disputes it, prolongs it.

What used to be marginal practices has become a standard. Today, almost all consumers consult reviews before buying. Decisions are no longer built solely on what brands say, but on what other consumers say. In other words, perception is no longer only played out in the exhibition, but in the interaction.

This is where the lag appears. Media models continue to measure attention, visibility, exposure. They quantify what is seen. But they still very imperfectly capture what is believed. But in a message-saturated environment, the difference is no longer only in the ability to emerge, but in the ability to convince.

This shift is profound, because it transforms the very nature of the audience. It is no longer just a target to be reached, but an active component of the system. It produces signal, it influences perception, it participates in the construction of credibility.

In this context, simply being seen is no longer enough. Simply being heard is no longer enough. Even simply being understood is no longer enough. What matters most is whether—or not—a message is validated by others

This is where the limitations of the traditional model become apparent. As long as the media outlet limits itself to broadcasting, it captures only part of the value. It commands attention, but not what actually follows. Yet it is precisely in this “post-exposure” phase that what really matters now takes place: the formation of conviction.

And it is this shift—which is still largely underestimated—that paves the way for a broader transformation of the media’s role.

Participation as a new infrastructure

If the audience is no longer passive, then the issue is no longer just one of exposure, but of what is happening around it. For the transformation underway is not limited to a shift in behavior; it is fundamentally redefining the way value is created within the media ecosystem.

For a long time, this value was based on a simple sequence: produce content, distribute it, and attract an audience. The media was, above all, a vehicle. Its power was measured by its ability to bring a message and an audience together.

But this model is being superseded by a more complex one, in which value no longer comes solely from the content itself, but from the interactions it generates.

In other words, content alone is no longer enough. What matters is what’s built around it. This is precisely what platforms understood before anyone else:

• Amazon isn’t just an e-commerce site; it’s a continuous rating system.

• Google doesn’t just index information; it assesses its credibility using various signals.

• Social media, for its part, does not merely disseminate content; it ranks its impact based on the reactions it elicits.

In all these cases, engagement is not just a “bonus.” It is at the heart of the model; it shapes visibility, feeds algorithms, and influences decision-making. It transforms static content into a dynamic signal. And above all, it creates something that distribution alone cannot produce: perceived credibility. This point is essential.

Because in an information-saturated environment, where every message is potentially open to question, credibility can no longer be imposed. It is built collectively. It emerges from a combination of subtle cues, interactions, opinions, and cross-validations.

This is what McKinsey’s work on the “Consumer Decision Journey” has shown for several years: an increasing proportion of purchasing decisions are made outside the touchpoints controlled by brands. They are shaped in spaces of exchange, recommendation, and diffuse influence.

This shift has a direct consequence: participation becomes an infrastructure. Not merely a format or one engagement mechanism among many, but a fundamental component of the system. It governs the flow of information, determines its credibility, and ultimately, its effectiveness. It is precisely here that a new asymmetry emerges.

On the one hand, platforms have embraced this approach and scaled it up: they capture, organize, and monetize user engagement. On the other hand, premium media outlets continue, for the most part, to operate on a broadcast model.

Yet they possess a considerable asset: a direct relationship with their audiences, editorial legitimacy, and a more quality-oriented consumption environment. But this asset remains underutilized as long as it is not linked to participatory mechanisms.

For without participation, an essential dimension is missing: the ability to turn attention into conviction. What is at stake here is not a minor evolution of the media model. It is a paradigm shift.

Media is no longer just a space where people view a message. It is becoming a space where that message is discussed, validated, reinforced—or undermined. And it is in this ability to shape participation that value is gradually shifting.

The Paradox of Premium Media

If participation becomes infrastructure, then a question arises: where does value lie in today’s media ecosystem?

The contrast is striking. On the one hand, platforms have built models in which user engagement is central; they capture interactions, structure them, and leverage them. It is these signals that feed their algorithms, rank content, and ultimately influence decisions.

On the other hand, premium media outlets continue, for the most part, to operate on a broadcast model; yet they possess considerable strengths: an engaged audience, a direct relationship with their readers, and editorial credibility built up over time. All of these factors should, in theory, place them at the heart of this trust-based economy. But in reality, they are losing out on some of that value.

Because these media capture attention… without always structuring what follows. Interaction exists, but it often remains peripheral; it is neither organized nor integrated into the core of the media ecosystem. This is where the paradox lies: premium media are environments of trust, yet they do not fully activate the mechanisms that generate that trust on a large scale.

At the same time, platforms—which are less credible from an editorial standpoint—are capturing an increasing share of the value… precisely because they have built participation into their architecture. This disconnect points to a more profound shift.

Value no longer lies solely in the ability to convey a message, but in the ability to generate and organize the interactions that result from it. In other words, attention alone is no longer enough: it must be complemented by engagement.

Because it is through this engagement that perception is now shaped. It is no longer just the message that matters, but what is said around it. It is no longer just the brands that speak; it is the audiences who validate, qualify, or challenge.

And it is precisely this dynamic that current models still do not fully capture.

Audience engagement as a driver of performance

This shift toward engagement is not merely a cultural trend; it has direct implications for performance. For several years now, studies have consistently pointed to one thing: trust is a key determinant of marketing effectiveness.

Nielsen’s research shows that peer recommendations remain among the most credible sources. Kantar’s analyses highlight that a brand’s perceived differentiation relies largely on its ability to be trusted. Other studies, particularly in the areas of customer reviews and user-generated content, confirm that these signals directly influence purchasing decisions.

And yet, these factors still fall largely outside the scope of traditional performance metrics. We optimize visibility, acquisition costs, and conversion rates. But we still struggle to measure what drives the decision in the first place: credibility. That is where the gap lies.

Consumer engagement already exists. Consumers comment, rate, and recommend. But these signals remain fragmented, scattered, and rarely integrated into the media platforms themselves.

They influence the decision… without being fully connected to performance. Yet it is precisely this connection that is becoming strategic. Because in an environment where attention is abundant and competition is fierce, the difference no longer lies solely in the ability to generate traffic or conversions. It lies in the ability to reduce uncertainty.

And this reduction in uncertainty comes through evidence: evidence of use, evidence of experience, and validation by others. In other words, through structured forms of participation.

What is emerging, therefore, is a logical evolution of the model. Attention remains essential, performance remains measurable, but engagement becomes the link between the two.

It transforms a message into a credible signal. It turns exposure into conviction. It enhances performance by giving it a stronger foundation. In this context, integrating participation into the core of media strategies is no longer an option but a structural shift.

Audience participation is not a trend but a structural transformation

Consumers are already interacting, commenting, and reviewing: platforms have built their business models around this reality. Premium media outlets now have the assets to capitalize on it. What’s still missing is integration.

For as long as participation remains peripheral, it influences decision-making without being fully linked to performance. Yet it is precisely this link that becomes strategic.

In a saturated environment, performance no longer depends solely on the ability to convey a message. It depends on the ability to reduce uncertainty, and that reduction comes through proof.

With this in mind, we at BuyTryShare have begun exploring what a performance enriched by trust might look like.

Rather than through rhetoric, the Proof ROI Engine uses scenarios to estimate—across different contexts and industries—the potential impact of integrating a layer of proof—derived from actual consumer engagement—into a media campaign. The goal is not to prove but to test a hypothesis: what happens when attention meets proof?

The initial findings are clear: participation, when structured and actively engaged, does not replace performance; rather, it changes its nature. It transforms an exhibition into a signal, an intention into a conviction, and a measured performance into a credible one.

What the media reports generates attention; what audiences express builds trust. The next step is to connect the two.

Engagement with the media is therefore not an option. It is a logical next step and, most likely, the next phase of the model.

The media are still evolving in a logic of diffusion, while the market has already begun to change

The market has learned to spread better. He hasn’t yet learned to convince…

Historically, advertising has been built around a simple logic: to spread a message to as many people as possible. Television has industrialized this promise of power. Digital then amplified it, adding new targeting, distribution and measurement capabilities.

Even today, despite technological developments, the dominant model remains largely structured around the same pillars: inventory, scope, frequency and optimization. Even recent advances — CTV, programmatic, addressable TV — extend this logic. They allow better targeting, better distribution, better measurement. But they remain, basically, within the same framework: that of dissemination.

But while the industry continues to optimize the way it displays messages, another transformation is underway on the consumer side. They are no longer just exposed to advertising. They check, they compare, they look for real experiences, they look for credibility signals. In other words, attention alone is no longer enough. The proof becomes central.

This is what recent market developments show: the explosion of UGC, the rise of customer testimonials, the growing role of creators and the increased importance of social evidence in decision-making processes. But these developments also point to a new tension.

As the evidence becomes more widespread, it loses some of its value. Consumers are now exposed to thousands of reviews, sponsored content, sometimes biased testimonials, recommendations amplified by algorithms. The result: the evidence is everywhere, but trust no longer always follows. A new question then emerges, much more structuring than it seems: what distinguishes a marketing proof from a credible proof?

It is precisely in this disconnect that the media hold an underestimated asset. For if the next advertising battle is not about exposure alone, but about the quality of the relationship and credibility, then the value of the media may no longer rest solely on its ability to broadcast, but on its ability to activate identified audiences within a framework of trust.

The media already have a strategic asset: their first-party communities

If the logic of broadcasting today shows its limits, it is not only because of the saturation of messages. It is also because another asset, more discreet, has emerged in recent years at the heart of media strategies: the direct relationship with the audience.

Over the past decade, most media groups around the world have embarked on a profound transformation of their model. Behind login initiatives, paywalls, proprietary platforms or connected environments, a common goal is emerging: regain control of the user relationship.

This movement is not anecdotal. It responds to a structural change in the advertising market. With the gradual disappearance of third-party cookies and the increasing constraints related to privacy, first-party data has become a central asset. But even more than the data itself, it is the ability to maintain a direct, identified and recurring link with the user that gains value.

In this context, the media are not late. In some cases, they are even ahead of the curve. They already have:

• of logged-in users,

• proprietary behavioral data,

• controlled editorial environments,

• and especially a regular relationship with their audiences.

In other words, they have built the foundation for what other industries have already begun to monetize.

The development of retail media is a particularly enlightening illustration of this. In just a few years, commercial players have transformed their transactional relationship with their customers into a real advertising asset. According to McKinsey, these media networks are growing by more than 20% annually, driven by their ability to combine data first-party, usage context and proximity to the act of purchase.

This success is not only linked to performance. It is based on a deeper mechanism: the ability to activate an audience in a context where the relationship is already established.

The same phenomenon can be observed in the influence. Long perceived as a lever of amplification, it has gradually structured itself around another asset: the relationship between a creator and his community. What creates value is no longer just the reach of a creator, but the level of trust, commitment and authenticity perceived by his audience.

It is precisely this combination — relationship + context + credibility — that brands are looking for today. And that’s where the media are uniquely positioned.

Unlike platforms, they operate in editorial environments. Unlike creators, they have a scale and structure. Unlike retail players, they are not limited to a transactional moment. They are potentially at the crossroads of the three.

However, this position is still largely underexploited.

Because in most cases, this first-party relationship is still used as an optimization lever — improving targeting, refining segmentation, increasing the value of inventory — rather than as a full-fledged monetization asset.

This is the paradox: the media have already built what the market values most — a direct relationship with their audiences — but still often continue to translate it into the logic of the past.

If we accept that advertising enters a phase where credibility becomes as important as visibility, then this relationship changes in nature.

It no longer becomes only a tool for addressing, it becomes a potential lever for trust, commitment and, tomorrow, proof.

The question is no longer whether the media have a relational asset but why this asset is still mostly monetized as broadcasting.

The next frontier: monetizing the relationship, not just diffusion

If the media have already built up logged environments, first-party bases and engaged audiences, then a question becomes inevitable: why does this asset still remain predominantly monetized as broadcasting?

Today, even when a user is identified, engaged, and registered in a quality editorial environment, the value that is extracted from it often remains reduced to known logics: CPM, reach, frequency, targeting, optimization. In other words, valuation models designed for a dissemination asset are applied to a relational asset.

This shift is becoming more and more visible.

On the one hand, brands are looking for levers that can strengthen the credibility of their messages. They invest heavily in influence, customer testimonials, UGC content, recommendation devices. They are shifting some of their budgets to environments where perceived evidence is already embedded.

On the other hand, the vast majority of media continue to sell optimized visibility. It’s not a mistake. It’s inertia.

Because historically, media value has been built on the ability to expose a message on a large scale. And the entire industry – from business models to measurement tools – is still largely organized around this logic.

But as trust becomes a differentiating factor, this approach shows its limits.

• An exhibition no longer guarantees membership.

• A repetition no longer ensures credibility.

• Optimization does not necessarily increase confidence.

This changeover is no longer only theoretical.

He has been at the center of recent industry discussions, including the French edition of “The Future of TV Advertising” organized by The Media Leader in Paris, which we visited with BuyTryShare and Televaluateurs. The program itself gave a clear reading, putting CTV at the center of the day, the activation of audiences between linear and digital, cross-media measurement, the creator economy, the authenticity of content and the transformation of TV models.

Through the various keynotes, panels and studies presented, a common point was clearly emerging: performance is no longer only about the ability to broadcast, but increasingly about the ability to engage, credibility and activate audiences. And thus to give meaning and credibility to this dissemination.

It talks about streaming as a driver of discovery and fandom, authenticity as a new standard — especially with the Gen Z —, convergence between creators, platforms and media, but also the transformation of TV models towards more relational and more data-driven logic.

In other words, the entire ecosystem is already exploring a major evolution: moving from an exposure logic to an activation logic.

In other words, the entire ecosystem is already exploring a major evolution: moving from an exposure logic to an activation logic.

• Retail media does not only monetize impressions: it monetizes a transactional, contextualized relationship, close to the act of purchase.

• Influence is not based solely on reach; it is based on the relationship between a creator and his community.

• Platforms, finally, don’t just sell audience: they sell engagement environments.

In each of these cases, the value comes not only from the volume, but from the quality of the link. This is where the media have a lever that is still under-exploited, because they are potentially capable of doing something rarer: activating an audience in a credible editorial environment, with a relationship built over time, and in a setting where trust can be mobilized.

In other words, they might no longer just sell visibility: they might start monetizing the relationship itself.

This shift is still emerging. It is not fully structured, standardized or fully measured. But it already appears to be in the dark in market developments: the rise of formats incorporating proof, the search for authenticity, the hybridization between content, recommendation and advertising.

This is probably where the next frontier lies: not in a new optimization of inventory, but in a new way of creating value from what the media has already built.

In a message-saturated environment, the ability to reach an audience will remain important, but the ability to activate that audience in a trusted environment could become decisive.

The media has learned to capture attention. The next step may be to learn how to activate trust… It remains to structure these evolutions into truly activatable and measurable devices.

Conclusion: a trend towards power/confidence convergence

What we are seeing today is not a simple evolution of formats or channels. This is a deeper transformation.

For decades, the value of media has been built on its ability to capture and distribute attention. Television has industrialized it. Digital has amplified it. Data has optimized it. But in a saturated environment, this logic reaches its limits.

Because when everything catches attention, attention loses its value. What is becoming rare is no longer exposure, it is credibility.

In this context, brands are already shifting their investments to environments where perceived evidence is integrated: creators, communities, embodied content. They are no longer just looking to be seen. They seek to be believed.

And that is precisely where the next step lies. The media have a unique asset:.

👉 a direct relationship with their audiences,

👉 built in time,

👉 in credible editorial environments.

But as long as this relationship remains exploited as a mere diffusion lever, much of its value remains untapped. The real challenge may no longer be to optimize the distribution but to transform this relationship into an activatable lever of trust.

In other words: moving from an attention-centered model to one that can integrate evidence.

For tomorrow, the question will no longer be only “how many people have seen this message?” but “why has this message been believed?”

And in this shift, a new strategic space appears. A space that is still largely untapped, a space where value comes not only from visibility, but from the ability to reduce uncertainty.

A space where advertising is no longer content to promise, but begins to demonstrate.

The new phase of the streaming wars

Each player launched its own platform. In 2007, ten years after its creation as a mail-order DVD rental service, Netflix made a strategic pivot: the company introduced its subscription-based streaming service. Subscription video on demand (SVoD) already existed in various forms, but Netflix was the first to make it a comprehensive industry model—thus ushering in a new era for the media economy. Once the market was validated, all the major media groups (Disney+, Paramount+, HBO Max) and tech companies (Prime Video) followed suit.

The battle was over :

• content

• subscribers

• catalogues.

Each platform sought to attract viewers through its original productions and the breadth of its offerings. Success was measured primarily by the number of subscribers and the ability to produce exclusive content.

Today, a new phase begins. Platforms are no longer just looking to produce content. They are looking to structure access to content. Power is shifting.

Let’s take some recent examples.

Netflix has entered into an agreement with TF1 to integrate the content of TF1+ into its platform. The goal is not simply to offer more programs. It’s mostly about integrating this content into the Netflix interface, where users are already browsing. Content becomes accessible… but in an environment controlled by Netflix.

Amazon follows a similar logic. In France, Prime Video now offers direct access to M6+ and France.tv from its interface. The user stays in the Amazon ecosystem, even when watching programs from a traditional broadcaster.

The same movement can be found elsewhere in Europe. Partnerships between platforms and broadcasters are multiplying – whether it is distribution agreements, co-production or content circulation between digital environments (e.g. Disney+/iTV). Again, it’s not just a question of the catalog, it’s a question of the point of entry.

Dans tous ces cas, le contenu circule. Mais l’interface reste centrale. Autrement dit, la bataille ne porte plus seulement sur ce que l’on regarde, elle porte de plus en plus sur où et comment on y accède. Le groupe Canal+ l’a bien compris. Depuis plusieurs années, il développe une stratégie d’agrégation de plateformes — Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+ ou Apple TV+ — au sein de ses propres environnements. Avec myCanal en Europe et ses plateformes opérées via MultiChoice en Afrique, Canal+ ne se positionne plus seulement comme distributeur de contenus, mais comme interface d’accès aux contenus.

In all these cases, the content is circulated. But the interface remains central. In other words, the battle is no longer just about what you look at, it is increasingly about where and how you access it. The Canal+ group has understood this. For several years now, it has been developing a strategy for aggregating platforms — Netflix, Disney+, Paramount+ or Apple TV+ — within its own environments. With myCanal in Europe and its platforms operated via MultiChoice in Africa, Canal+ is no longer only positioned as a content distributor, but as an interface for accessing content.

Because in the economy of attention, the one who controls the interface controls:

• navigation

• the recommendation

• the data

• and, ultimately, advertising monetization.

The logic of streaming therefore evolves gradually: from content control to content access control. And this is precisely where the media architecture is being redrawn.

When broadcasters themselves become platforms

Faced with the rise of global interfaces, the historical broadcasters were quick to adapt their strategy.

Rather than remaining mere content providers for large platforms, they are now seeking to regain control of the relationship with the public. The answer lies in developing their own digital platforms. In Europe, this movement is particularly visible.

In France, TF1+, M6+ and France.tv embody this transformation. Audiovisual groups are no longer content with offering replay services: they are building real free streaming environments financed by advertising.

But this dynamic far exceeds the French market.

• In the UK, ITVX has become one of the pillars of free streaming, combining on-demand content, FAST channels and original productions.

• In Germany, RTL+ and Joyn — powered by ProSiebenSat.1 and Warner Bros Discovery — demonstrate the same drive to build platforms that can compete with global players..

• In the Netherlands and Belgium, the DPG Media Group is also developing its own digital environments around its media and audiovisual brands.

• In Italy and Spain, Mediaset (MFE) is pursuing a similar strategy with Mediaset Infinity, which brings together programs, streaming and advertising in the same ecosystem.

In all these cases, the objective goes far beyond the mere provision of replay programs. It is about building a complete editorial and technological environment:

• a clean interface

• a recommendation system

• a direct relationship with users

• and a controlled advertising framework.

In other words, broadcasters are looking to become architects of their media environments again.

This transformation is accompanied by a rapid growth in the audience of BVoD (Broadcaster Video On Demand) platforms.

• In France, the platforms of audiovisual groups now gather tens of millions of users each month with several billion videos viewed per year.

• In the UK, ITVX claims more than 30 million registered users, inherited from the old ITV Hub, and continues to increase its streaming volumes sharply.

• In Germany, Joyn now exceeds 10 million monthly users, confirming the rise of free ad-supported platforms.

• Also in Germany and Central Europe, RTL+ exceeds 7 million paid subscribers in its streaming services.

• In Italy, Mediaset Infinity has established itself as the central digital platform of the Mediaset group, combining free streaming, replay and premium content.

These platforms now occupy a strategic position in the audiovisual ecosystem. They allow broadcasters to:

• extend the life of their programs

• reaching younger audiences

• develop digital formats

• and offer advertisers premium environments in a controlled environment.

In this context, BVoD is no longer simply a catch-up service. It becomes a real media architecture.

The rise of BVoD platforms reveals a paradox. Broadcasters have managed to rebuild a direct relationship with their audiences through streaming. Millions of users are now connected, identified and engaged in their digital environments.

But in today’s advertising economy, these communities are still largely under-exploited. But behind these platforms is perhaps one of the most strategic assets of the media ecosystem: real consumer communities, capable not only of seeing advertising… but also of reacting to it, participating in it and reinforcing its credibility.

When trust becomes a media infrastructure

This is profoundly changing the dynamics of the market.

• On the one hand, global platforms control powerful interfaces, capable of aggregating a wide variety of content.

• On the one hand, global platforms control powerful interfaces, capable of aggregating a wide variety of content.

• So the competition is no longer just about catalogs.

• It now focuses on the ability to structure trusted environments.

It is precisely in this tension between global interfaces and editorial architectures that the advertising economy is redrawing itself.

Si les plateformes redéfinissent l’accès aux contenus, elles redéfinissent aussi la manière dont la publicité est perçue.

For a long time, the main issue for brands was visibility: reaching as many viewers as possible in the most powerful environments. But in a fragmented universe, dominated by algorithms and interfaces, another question becomes central: in what environment does a brand really build trust?

Advertising no longer evolves only in an inventory logic. It is part of editorial, technological and relational ecosystems. And in these ecosystems, trust becomes a key factor.

Global platforms have mastered certain levers: interface, recommendation, data and algorithmic optimization.

Traditional broadcasters, on the other hand, have another asset: the historical relationship with their audiences. With their BVoD platforms, they have managed to recreate a direct link with millions of connected users.

These hearings are no longer just viewers. These are:

• identified users

• committed spectators

• but also real consumers.

And this is where a new opportunity for the advertising ecosystem appears. Behind these platforms lies a strategic asset that is still largely under-exploited: the ability to activate audiences themselves in the construction of advertising credibility.

From audience to community, a new frontier for advertising

For decades, television advertising operated according to a simple model: the media broadcast messages, audiences received them. But in a digital environment, this logic is evolving.

Platforms no longer only bring together passive audiences. They structure communities of connected users. Communities capable of:

• to look

• to react

• to share

• and potentially contribute to building trust around brands.

In a world where the content generated by artificial intelligence is multiplying and where the credibility of information is regularly questioned, this dimension becomes essential.

Advertising can no longer be based solely on the repetition of a message. It must be based on visible and credible signals of confidence.

Dans ce contexte, la question clé pour l’écosystème média n’est peut-être plus seulement : qui possède les contenus ? Ni même : qui contrôle l’interface ?

In this context, the key question for the media ecosystem may no longer be just: who owns the content? Or even: who controls the interface?

Because in the attention economy, credibility becomes a competitive advantage.

And the platforms that will succeed tomorrow will not be just those that distribute content or control interfaces. They will be the ones who will be able to structure environments where audiences, brands and the media participate together in the construction of this trust.

In the next phase of the media economy, value may no longer be played only in content or interfaces, but in the ability to organize trust between brands, media and audiences themselves.

Streaming, CTV and advertising: towards a new investment landscape

For several years now, advertising investment has been gradually shifting away from traditional media towards digital, connected and interactive environments.

More recently, this dynamic has taken on a new dimension:

• Netflix is now on track to capture a significant share of global CTV advertising investment, soon to account for nearly 10% of total CTV advertising spend — a strong sign of the advertising market’s reshaping. (source: The Media Leader)

• In France, Prime Video has integrated M6+ into its interface, giving millions of Prime subscribers access to the group’s channels (M6, W9, 6ter, Gulli) at no extra cost — an illustration of the direct convergence between global platforms and local inventories. (source: Ideal-Investisseur)

• At the same time, advertising revenue generated by podcasts and native video formats continues to show double-digit growth, highlighting the growing importance of these formats in capturing audience attention. (source: The Media Leader)

These developments signal a fundamental shift: the advertising landscape is being reshaped around powerful, multi-screen platforms, where the concept of media framework — and therefore trust — is undergoing radical change.

When streaming becomes an inventory… but also an environment

Streaming platforms are no longer just content distributors. They have become:

• a content distribution tool with advertising inventories,

• an advertising exhibition space with attention interfaces

• an attention-capturing interface based on broadcasting architectures.

What was previously fragmented (TV channels, local streaming services, on-demand content) is now tending to be grouped together under a single ‘portal’.

In a traditional linear environment, the framework was clear: editorial responsibility was identified, content hierarchy was structured, and context was controlled.

In a platform environment:

• content is aggregated,

• distribution is algorithmic,

• the interface becomes the framework.

The strategic question is no longer simply: Where can I effectively reach my audience? But in what environment does my brand truly build credibility?

BVoD: digital power, editorial architecture

Beyond global platforms such as Netflix and Prime Video, the BVoD platforms of traditional channels are also experiencing significant and structured audience growth.

TV channels’ BVoD platforms thus take on a special dimension. Unlike purely algorithmic environments, they rely on :

• Identified media brands,

• Assumed editorial responsibility,

• Continuity between linear and digital,

• A consistent framework between content and advertising.

They combine:

• the flexibility of streaming,

• the power of CTV,

• and the editorial architecture inherited from television

At a time when global platforms are capturing the interface, BVoDs are retaining the architecture. They are not simply monetised video streams. They extend a structured framework in the digital environment.

In France, video on demand (VoD) consumption — including channel offerings (BVoD) — now accounts for around one third of total video viewing time, with more than 6.5 million daily viewers watching this type of content in 2023, a sharp increase compared to five years earlier. This practice of ‘television on demand’ has become ingrained in the daily lives of audiences, with VoD viewing now accounting for 33% of total video consumption, rising steadily year on year.

In terms of advertising in Europe, premium BVoD content dominates streaming ad views, accounting for up to 76% of premium impressions on digital streaming environments in 2025, highlighting its appeal and engagement potential for advertisers

These uses show that while TV channels are gradually losing their linear audience, they are transforming and extending this audience in controlled digital environments, expanding opportunities for contact while offering brands more contextual advertising frameworks than simple anonymous programmatic broadcasting.

Trust becomes a strategic issue

It is no coincidence that the next edition of the UDECAM Meetings places trust at the heart of the debate: ‘The new drivers of trust.’

When media consulting and buying professionals make it a central issue, it means one thing is clear: the question now goes beyond performance. It touches on the very structure of media environments.

In a context where:

• Budgets are shifting massively towards streaming,

• platforms are focusing attention,

• AI is making synthetic content indistinguishable,

• interfaces are unifying heterogeneous editorial universes,

Trust is no longer an added bonus; it has become a strategic asset.

In this reconfigured landscape:

• How can attention be measured in a way that is comparable to traditional environments?

• How can a stable and identifiable advertising context be guaranteed?

• How can proof and credibility be maintained for brands in inventories that automatically integrate third-party, dynamic and sometimes algorithmic content?

These issues go beyond mere performance optimisation to touch on a broader challenge: the ability of this new ecosystem to provide a reliable environment conducive to building trust.

A structural shift to be analysed

The divide between performance and trust, already highlighted in our previous editions, is growing stronger:

• Platforms offer powerful performance: granular targeting, audience measurement, real-time optimisation.

• Structured media offer an identifiable framework: editorial responsibility, content hierarchy, explicit moderation.

In an environment where AI enables the mass production of synthetic content, the line between what is “safe” and what is “trustworthy” becomes less clear.

What creates value is the quality of the environment in which advertising exists. The debate is no longer just about ‘Is my brand safe?’ but about ‘In what environment does my brand build lasting trust?’

This redefines two essential things:

1. Brand safety: no longer just protection against risky environments, but a proactive approach to selecting contexts.

2. Contextual trust: which depends not only on the message, but also on the media environment in the broadest sense.

The development of CTV platforms, catalogue aggregation and the rise of hybrid environments combining local and global content are profoundly transforming the way audiences consume media. But they are also transforming the nature of the advertising landscape.

In a conventional linear environment:

• the editorial context is identified,

• the content hierarchy is structured,

• responsibility is embodied.

In a platform environment:

• the content is aggregated,

• the interface is unified,

• distribution is algorithmic.

The question then becomes strategic: Is the platform simply an inventory or a fully-fledged editorial environment?

What this means for the ecosystem

In this reconfigured context, several questions deserve to be asked:

• Do attention measurement models need to be reinvented to incorporate unified streaming environments

• How can brands guarantee the credibility and transparency of their advertising beyond performance metrics alone?

• Can media outlets fighting for survival take advantage of this redistribution of investment?

• And above all: what place is there for context, proof and trust in advertising that is increasingly moving beyond traditional editorial environments?

The real challenge

Streaming is redrawing the investment map. Platforms are redefining access to content. Audiences are migrating to hybrid environments.

The challenge is no longer just about securing distribution. It is about choosing the right framework: because in a market dominated by attention, context becomes a strategic asset. And trust becomes a competitive advantage.

But one question remains: how can we rebuild trust in advertising in fragmented, algorithmic and sometimes opaque environments?

Part of the answer lies in returning to the evidence.

• Authenticated reviews.

• Real customer experiences.

• Structured post-purchase conversations.

When advertising goes beyond simply spreading a message and relies on tangible evidence, it not only gains credibility, it also gains :

• trust,

• attention,

• commitment,

• and economic value.

In a changing ecosystem, the media framework is essential. But when enriched with evidence, this framework becomes a multiplier of trust.

In an ecosystem dominated by attention, context becomes a strategic asset. And proof becomes a confidence booster.

An erosion that goes far beyond advertising

The recent announcement by The Washington Post — the dismissal of nearly 300 journalists out of 800, following more than $100 million in losses in 2024 — is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom.

In the United States, more than one newspaper out of three has disappeared in twenty years. In Europe, and particularly in France, the trajectory is the same — simply slower, and still sometimes denied.

At the end of January, Arcom reiterated a brutal reality: so-called “traditional media” — press, radio, television — now capture only 33% of the total advertising market, down from 46% in 2021.

At the same time, social platforms continue to record sustained advertising growth, at +14% per year since 2019.

The outcome is well known, but rarely acknowledged: 56% of French media outlets are now operating at a loss, and nearly 80% show low or negative margins.

This is no longer a cyclical crisis. It is a structural erosion of value.

But this erosion goes far beyond an economic issue. It poses a major democratic risk.

Strong, independent, economically stable media outlets are not a luxury: they are one of the cornerstones of a functioning liberal democracy. They ensure the production of verified, pluralistic, prioritised information. They create a common space for understanding reality.

However, as advertising value shifts towards platforms, this foundation is becoming increasingly fragile. Algorithms do not finance pluralism: they optimise engagement. They do not structure debate: they fragment it. They do not expose people to contradiction: they lock individuals into homogeneous cognitive spheres that are often emotional and sometimes antagonistic.

This shift does not organise collective conversation: it segments it, polarises it and, increasingly, pits audiences against each other. Where the media build a shared space, platforms operate by affinity, by reaction, by amplifying strong signals — to the detriment of nuance, context and the long term.

The danger is therefore not only the gradual disappearance of titles, editorial teams or formats. The danger is the silent disintegration of democratic debate, replaced by a juxtaposition of parallel narratives, without common arbitration or a hierarchy of trust.

It is precisely in this context of democratic fragility and fragmentation of public conversation that a central question arises: when trust erodes and the media lose their ability to orchestrate debate, what remains to recreate value — and meaning — between brands, media and audiences?

The paradox that the figures do not reveal

This decline is often explained by a buzzword: attention. Audiences are said to be volatile. Usage is fragmented. Young people are said to be ‘elsewhere’. However, one fact directly contradicts this narrative.

Consumers have never been so keen to give their opinions, comment on their purchases, share their experiences and talk about their interactions with brands.

They do so spontaneously, without financial incentive, sometimes even without being asked. Recent discussions highlighted in the media — notably on France Inter — confirm this: the need for expression, recognition and sharing after purchase is massive, cross-cutting and generational.

In other words: the public has not fallen silent. It has simply changed the space in which it speaks.

However, this reality continues to worry many brands. Consumer expression is still too often perceived as a risk — the risk of criticism, bad buzz, loss of control. This fear is inherited from an advertising model based on a one-way message, where any external communication was seen as a threat.

The data tells a different story. Several recent studies show that consumers are not primarily seeking to punish brands, but rather to help them, provided they are listened to. A majority say they are willing to share their opinions, point out areas for improvement, and recommend a product or service when it truly matches their experience. Post-purchase feedback is not a court of law: it is a space for contribution.

What brands fear is not consumer feedback, but rather the lack of structure surrounding it. When this feedback is left to unedited, uncontextualised platforms, it becomes volatile, sometimes brutal, and often disconnected from the reality of use. Conversely, when it is structured, explained and placed in a clear and credible context, it becomes a lever for trust, education and sustainable value.

Where the conversation went… value followed

This conversation has long been underestimated by the traditional media.

While they continued to think of advertising as a top-down message, platforms built something else: spaces for expression, reaction, rating and commentary.

Result: advertising value shifted towards those who captured not only attention, but post-exposure engagement.

Today, Google, Meta, Amazon, TikTok and their peers account for most of the growth in global advertising.

• Not because they produce more credible information.

• Not because they offer better editorial contexts.

• But because they have managed to industrialise social proof.

What the media lost was not audience, but evidence.

The heart of the problem is therefore not solely economic. It is symbolic and functional.

Traditional media have long been implicit guarantors of credibility: a message disseminated in their environments benefited, by extension, from their authority. But this authority is no longer sufficient.

Today’s audiences are no longer satisfied with just hearing a promise. They want:

• see it confirmed by other consumers,

• compare it with actual uses,

• compare it, comment on it, discuss it.

When this proof does not exist — or remains invisible — trust erodes, even if attention is there.

Caution ≠ trust ≠ decision

This is where the misunderstanding persists. Attention has become a key performance indicator. Measured, modelled, optimised.

But attention alone does not trigger a decision. Without follow-through — without proof, without shared experience, without embodied words — it remains:

• short,

• volatile,

• reversible.

What platforms understood very early on is that decisions rarely arise from the message itself, but from what happens after the message.

The missing link in traditional advertising

Traditional media still have three major advantages:

• credible editorial contexts,

• greater attention span,

• strong cultural and democratic legitimacy.

But they often lack a crucial link: the ability to integrate, in a structured and visible way, the real voice of consumers into the advertising chain.

Not in the form of anarchic comments. Not at the expense of editorial credibility. But as structured, verifiable, contextualised evidence.

As long as this evidence remains confined to social media platforms, value will continue to be concentrated there.

What the flight of investment really reveals

The shift of advertising budgets towards platforms is not a rejection of traditional media. It is a rational decision in the face of a lack of proof.

Advertisers are not just looking for short-term performance. They are looking for:

• Messages that stand the test of time,

• promises that are kept,

• credibility that endures.

Where the media no longer provide this continuity between exposure and proof, others do so — albeit imperfectly.

Restoring trust is not nostalgia, it is a strategy.

The question, therefore, is not whether traditional media are “outdated”. They are not.

The question is whether they will agree to rethink advertising as a complete experience, incorporating:

• attention,

• context,

• creativity,

• and proof of use.

Because in a world saturated with messages, what makes the difference is no longer what we say, but what we can demonstrate.

And as long as this demonstration remains elsewhere, value will continue to slip away — silently, methodically — to those who have understood that trust has become the real currency of the advertising economy.

(c) Illustration Romain Doucelin/Hans Lucas via AFP – Les Echos

Targeting is improving, but so is scepticism

The TF1/M6/Amazon initiative is part of a clear industrial strategy: if audiences are fragmenting and switching to streaming, we will seek out data to stay in the race.

The idea: to win back market share from social media platforms and digital giants by offering advertisers more ‘engaged’ audiences that are closer to the moment of purchase and better segmented.

And the context proves them right… but only on part of the issue.

• In June 2024, streaming already accounted for 40.3% of total time spent watching television, according to Nielsen’s The Gauge, an all-time record.

• In May 2025, another symbolic shift occurred: streaming surpassed traditional television for the first time, accounting for 44.8% of TV usage compared to 44.2% for broadcast and cable combined.

• At the same time, groups such as Warner Bros. and Paramount recorded double-digit declines in their traditional television revenues (–18% and –13% in certain quarters of 2024), confirming that linear television alone is no longer enough to finance the party.

In France and Europe, it’s the same story:

• Digital has accounted for the majority of media investment in France since 2022, and is expected to reach nearly 69% of media spending by 2028.

• In 2024, the French advertising market grew by +7.7%, driven by digital and the Olympic Games, while traditional TV saw its relative share erode in the mix.

• At European level, digital advertising exceeded €118.9 billion in 2024, up 16% year-on-year, confirming the structural shift in budgets towards connected screens.

In this landscape, the reaction of television broadcasters is logical: if television is losing ground, it will be ‘rearmed’ with platform-style targeting. Hence the convergence of models:

• Google has DV360

• Meta has its ecosystème AEM / CAPI

• The Trade Desk s’appuie sur ses graphes d’identité propriétaires

• Amazon pousse son stack retail media jusque dans la TV connectée… et désormais chez TF1+ et M6+ avec Amazon Publisher Cloud

What changes with this partnership is that French television ad sales houses officially embrace the same paradigm: ‘more data’ to compensate for ‘less attention’ and ‘less linear revenue’.

Except that: Data cannot fix what it does not touch: the credibility of the message.

Yes, data targets better. Yes, it optimises GRPs and segments. Yes, it reassures CFOs with attractive dashboards.

But on the ground, on the public side, the figures tell a different story:

• Nielsen shows that 64% of consumers actively take steps to avoid adverts on free, ad-supported video services (channel hopping, multitasking, etc.), and 59% say they are willing to pay to avoid adverts altogether.

• At the same time, BrightLocal’s local consumer review survey reminds us that 98% of consumers read online reviews at least occasionally before choosing a local business, and that 76% read them ‘always’ or ‘regularly’.

• The same family of studies shows that a majority of consumers lose confidence in a company when they see mostly negative reviews, a sign that the decision is no longer based on exposure, but on perceived evidence.

In other words: targeting has never been so sophisticated… and never has there been so much ad avoidance.

Reliable studies confirm the decline:

• Nielsen’s Global Trust in Advertising report reminds us that recommendations from friends and family remain the most reliable channel, ahead of all forms of advertising. ‘Online consumer opinions’ come in just behind, far ahead of banners, mobile formats or other display formats.

Yes indeed :

• Targeting is improving,

• media piping is becoming increasingly sophisticated,

• and combining viewing data with Amazon purchase signals allows for optimised planning.

But data does not make advertising more credible. It does not repair mistrust of brand messages. It does not, in itself, prove that the product delivers on its promises. And this is not a technical detail: it is the real divide in the market.

We have built very complex architectures to determine who to talk to, where and when. But we have done very little work on ‘why this person should believe what we are telling them’.

The current crisis is therefore not a crisis of targeting. It is a crisis of message legitimacy.

A useful partnership… but one that reinforces strategic dependence

Let’s be clear: for TF1 and M6, partnering with Amazon makes sense. Streaming platforms need to make their model profitable, SMEs are looking for simple and effective solutions, and the market demands responsible targeting.

The deal therefore ticks all the operational boxes at the moment.

But behind the immediate effectiveness lies an obvious strategic risk: by integrating Amazon signals, channels are becoming slightly more dependent on an ecosystem that has captured a large share of advertising value over the past decade.

A brief reminder of recent history:

• Social media captured attention (time spent, short formats, engagement).

• Amazon captured the conversion (retail media, internal search, real-time purchase data).

• Television, weakened by the erosion of linear broadcasting, is now attempting to regain ground thanks to data.

This move makes sense, but it creates asymmetry: as soon as media value depends mainly on external data, whoever owns the data controls the value chain.

And in this partnership, it is not TF1 or M6 that owns the purchase data: it is Amazon. But if the history of digital technology has taught us one thing, it is this:

📌 Whoever controls the data controls the future dependence of the market.

But above all, this debate over ‘who has the best data?’ obscures a key point that platforms cannot address: proof that advertising works.

A clean room can bring signals closer together. It can refine segments. It can improve attribution models. But it cannot:

• make a message more credible,

• build trust,

• incorporate certified evidence into an advertisement,

• or clearly show on screen why a product is worth buying.

And it is precisely this third pillar — visible, verifiable evidence integrated into the media — that the market has still not resolved. In summary

✔️ Amazon helps television target its audience more effectively.

❌ But Amazon is not helping him to be more convincing

And it is this divide — relevance versus evidence — that will determine the winners of the next decade.

The advertising crisis is not a data crisis. It is a credibility crisis.

For ten years, all studies have been hammering home the same message:

• Trust in TV adverts is declining year after year.

• Attention spans are fragmented into micro-fragments, reducing the time available for persuasion.

• Consumers systematically check reviews before buying (95% according to BrightLocal).

• Branded messages are losing authority, often perceived as exaggerated or out of touch.

• Above all, social proof now dominates brand messaging.

To put it plainly: the problem is not that adverts are poorly targeted… it is that people no longer believe them spontaneously.

Technology can optimise distribution, refine segments and enrich media plans. But it does not answer the essential question that crosses every household, every screen and every purchasing decision:

“Why should I believe what this brand tells me?”

In an environment saturated with messages (consumers are exposed to more than 15,000 commercial stimuli per day), persuasion no longer relies on repetition or algorithmic personalisation.

It is based on something simpler, but infinitely more powerful: evidence.

Human signals. Authentic. Verifiable. Understood in a second.

It is this combination — Attention + Trust — that truly triggers conversion. And certainly not the combination of Attention + Data, however sophisticated it may be.

The next frontier: integrating proof directly into advertising

The next battle will not be won on the field of targeting. It will be won on the field of visible trust.

The industry has tried everything:

• behavioural triggers

• creative AI

• cross-device

• DCO

• attribution modelling

• proprietary clean rooms

What it has not yet industrialised is certified proof in advertising creations. However:

• 95% of people read reviews before buying

• Reviews increase sales by an average of +18%

• The presence of proof increases attention by +20 to +30%

• QR codes drastically reduce the ‘last mile’ between exposure and action

• And the ISO 20488/NF522 standard creates a credible framework for certified reviews

Television, newspapers and cinema have something that social media platforms will never have: the power of context. Add proof to that, and you regain what social media platforms have taken away from you: trust.

Targeting won’t save advertising. Trust will.

The TF1 + M6 + Amazon alliance is an important, long-awaited, strategic move. It modernises French television. It opens the doors to retail media. It extends performance.

But it does not address the core of the problem: the credibility deficit of advertising.

The next major market revolution will not come from a DSP, a clean room or an identity graph.

It will come from a simple, forgotten, almost banal principle: people believe other people. They no longer believe advertisements. The solution is there.

And the entire future value of advertising lies precisely at this intersection: where proof meets media.

1. A structural decline in revenues for “traditional” media

Linear television, print media, and cinema have been experiencing a sustained erosion of advertising revenue for more than a decade. This is not a temporary blip, but a genuine structural transformation.

• United States: The number of pay TV subscribers (cable, satellite) has been declining for nine consecutive years. According to S&P Global, this trend will continue, with several million fewer households each year, leading to a mechanical contraction of the associated advertising market.

• World: Caretta Research estimates that broadcast television and pay TV will lose $42 billion in revenue between 2024 and 2029. This is one of the fastest declines ever recorded in the history of audiovisual media.

• Australia: Advertising revenues for free-to-air television fell by 8.1% in 2024, representing a loss of more than $250 million in a single year. This decline has been partially offset by the rise of BVoD platforms, but it reveals a lasting shift in investment.

For more than a decade, the print media has been experiencing a structural erosion of its advertising revenues, which cannot be offset by digital growth alone.

• In France, advertising revenue for the press declined by an average of 5.4% per year between 2012 and 2022. According to BUMP (S1-2025), total press revenue (print + digital) stands at €623 million, down 7.7% from the previous year. Projections from the Ministry of Culture (DGMIC/ARCOM) estimate that the press could lose a third of its advertising value by 2030 if current trends continue.

• In Europe, the situation is no better. In Germany, advertising revenues for print media fell from €6.9 billion in 2010 to €3.85 billion in 2016, a drop of nearly 45% in six years.

• Globally, WARC Media forecasts a 33% decline in advertising spending in the press (print + digital) between 2019 and 2025.

This rapid deterioration is linked to a dual dynamic:

• The decline in print circulation and traditional readership, leading to a loss of appeal for advertisers.

• The shift of investment towards digital (search, social media, online video), where the press struggles to compete with the targeting power and critical mass of GAFAM platforms.

👉 In short: the press, long a pillar of advertising and guarantor of trust with its readers, is seeing its advertising revenues collapse structurally. Publishers are trying to reinvent themselves with paywalls, digital subscriptions, and sponsored content, but profitability remains fragile and digital revenues are not compensating for the decline in print. The conclusion is clear: the historical power of the media is no longer enough to guarantee sustainable revenues. Groups must find new sources of value to offset this structural decline.

Long considered a premium medium for advertising—captive, immersive, emotional—cinema is going through a period of turbulence that is undermining its revenues.

• Declining attendance: in France, the number of admissions fell from 200 million in 2019 to 181 million in 2023 (CNC), a decline of nearly 10% in four years. In several European markets, post-COVID recovery remains below pre-pandemic levels.

• Advertising revenues under pressure: according to Kantar, cinema advertising revenues in France fell by nearly 20% between 2019 and 2022. The recovery is partial, but unstable attendance figures are making advertisers cautious.

• Platform competition: Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and others are not only capturing viewers’ screen time, but also a growing share of advertising budgets through their AVoD offerings and partnerships.

• Increased costs for operators: energy, technological upgrades (IMAX, 4DX, LED screens), multiplex maintenance… all of these expenses weigh heavily on profitability.

Faced with these challenges, players are consolidating. The latest example: in 2025, Canal+ began its takeover of the UGC network, with an initial stake of 34% that could evolve into a complete takeover by 2028. UGC, an iconic operator (55 multiplexes in France and Belgium), represents a strategic asset for Canal+, which is seeking to control the entire value chain—from production to distribution, including theater operations.

👉 This acquisition illustrates a dual trend: on the one hand, the structural fragility of the cinema advertising model, and on the other, the desire of large groups to protect themselves by vertically integrating the industry. Cinema retains a unique emotional appeal, but its advertising revenues remain volatile, concentrated on a few blockbusters, and exposed to competition from digital media.

2. Media efforts to reinvent themselves

Faced with structural erosion of their revenues, major media groups are deploying multiple strategies to stem the loss of audiences and restore their appeal to advertisers.

• France/Europe: Last year, TF1 successfully launched its free TF1+ platform, enhanced with premium content, catch-up features, and personalized recommendations. The ambition is clear: to move closer to the standards set by Netflix and Disney+, while capitalizing on video advertising. M6+ and France.tv are following the same logic, with modernized interfaces and enriched catalogs, to retain an audience that now consumes content massively on demand.

• Australia: the shift is already visible in the figures. While linear television lost more than 8% of its advertising revenue in 2024, BVoD jumped 12.7% to $441 million. Advertisers favor these hybrid platforms, which are perceived as both high-quality (due to their proximity to traditional channels) and capable of offering digital targeting.

• United Kingdom/Germany: The BBC with iPlayer, ITV with ITVX, and ZDF and ProSiebenSat.1 via Joyn are investing heavily in AVoD (free with advertising) offerings and hybrid models combining subscription and advertising. These services are positioning themselves as credible local alternatives to the American giants, with a dual promise: to maintain cultural ties with the national audience and to capture advertising budgets that are migrating to digital.

• United States: Traditional networks (NBC, CBS, Disney via Hulu/Disney+) are increasing their AVoD offerings to compensate for the mass exodus of cable subscribers. These platforms enable them to maintain their advertising base while diversifying their revenue streams through low-cost subscriptions. Disney+, for example, is actively promoting its “ad-supported” offering in the United States and Europe, seeing premium digital advertising as a major growth driver.

• Consolidation as a strategic response: beyond digital transformation, media groups are seeking to strengthen themselves through mergers and acquisitions. Italy’s Mediaset acquired Germany’s ProSiebenSat.1 to create a European champion capable of competing with global platforms. RTL acquired Comcast’s Sky operations in the DACH region to expand its footprint, while the TF1/M6 merger, which was temporarily blocked, remains a regularly discussed scenario in the face of market pressure. And as Philippe Bailly of NPA Conseil, pointed out, Canal+’s acquisition of MultiChoice could bring the group’s total number of subscribers to more than 65 million in sub-Saharan Africa and the countries where its subsidiaries operate alone. The deal comes at a time when MultiChoice has around 21.7 million subscribers and Canal+ already has 26.4 million in more than 50 countries—this strategic alliance is a major lever for achieving its international objectives.

👉 These efforts reflect a clear desire to retain fragmented audiences, diversify revenue streams, and gain critical mass in the face of global platforms. But one issue remains unresolved: consumer trust. New platforms improve the content experience and distribution, and mergers create stronger champions, but none of these strategies address the credibility deficit in advertising. As long as less than one in two consumers say they trust advertising, the effectiveness of campaigns will remain limited, regardless of how powerful the players are.

3. Consumer mistrust of advertising

Despite a slight uptick in confidence in 2024, advertising continues to be viewed with mistrust and skepticism. The latest edition of the Advertising Association’s Trust Tracker reveals that in the UK, only 39% of people trust advertising, up from 36% the previous year. This average masks a deep generational divide: 18-34 year olds are nearly three times more likely to trust advertising than those over 55, and 51% of young people say they trust online advertising, compared to only 14% of seniors. Television and cinema remain the most trusted advertising media (43% of respondents).

In France, mistrust is even more pronounced. According to a Viavoice study published in 2024 for the Club des Annonceurs, 55% of French people have a negative image of advertising, compared to 39% who have a positive one. Young people (aged 18-24) are more conciliatory (62% positive opinions), but perceptions deteriorate significantly with age.

This mistrust translates into a marked preference for peer recommendations. A Nielsen poll cited by Business News Daily shows that 92% of consumers trust recommendations from friends and family, while less than half consider television, magazine, or newspaper advertisements to be credible. Online customer reviews also enjoy a high level of credibility: 70% of those surveyed say they trust them. However, trust in reviews is not unshakeable: BrightLocal’s Local Consumer Review Survey 2025 report highlights that only 42% of consumers place as much credit in online reviews as they do in recommendations from friends and family, down from 79% in 2020.

These figures highlight a “trust gap”: despite creative efforts, less than one in two consumers still believes advertising messages. This mistrust fuels the search for alternatives that combine media power and authenticity. BuyTryShare fits perfectly into this logic: by integrating verified customer reviews (compliant with ISO 20488/NF522 standards and validated by the ARPP) into TV, cinema, and press ads, the initiative combines the reach and creativity of traditional media with the credibility of consumer evidence. The aim is to restore meaning and value to advertising while offering advertising agencies a new source of revenue, in a context where trust is becoming a key performance criterion.

4. Rebuilding trust, rebuilding value: why BuyTryShare is vital for the changing media landscape

Advertising is going through a period of turbulence. Linear television audiences are falling, press revenues are eroding year after year, cinema attendance remains unstable, and advertisers are more cautious than ever. At the same time, consumer confidence in advertising has never been so fragile: less than one in two people consider the messages they receive to be credible.

It is precisely this divide that BuyTryShare was designed to address.

• Its purpose: to restore credibility to advertising and offer advertising sales houses new growth drivers.

• How: by injecting verified consumer reviews (ISO 20488/NF522, ARPP validation) into advertisements (TV, cinema, press) in an ultra-short and impactful format (5 seconds with QR code).

• The results: the first PoCs are already showing measurable gains: +25% attention and +15% incremental sales in categories such as agri-food.

But BuyTryShare is more than just a creative innovation. It is a systemic response to a critical moment for the media. As Thomas Jamet (founder of the 7Kids agency, part of the Labelium group) points out, the media is “undergoing change”: 15-34 year olds spend half as much time watching television as they did ten years ago, usage is shifting towards streaming and mobile, and the advertising value of traditional inventories is automatically eroding.

In this context:

• Advertisers are demanding greater ROI and tangible proof of advertising effectiveness.

• Advertising sales houses must find new business models to compensate for the structural decline in their revenues.

• Consumers are demanding greater transparency and credibility in the messages they receive.

BuyTryShare positions itself as the European solution to this triple challenge. By combining the emotional and creative power of traditional media with authentic consumer proof, it transforms advertising into a vehicle for trust and restores a differentiating value to Ad Sales Houses’ inventories.

In concrete terms, BuyTryShare allows you to:

• advertisers to secure their investments through more credible and effective campaigns,

• media outlets to increase monetization of their advertising space with a unique offering that stands out from GAFAM,

• consumers to reconnect with trustworthy advertising messages based on the real experiences of other customers.

🚀 BuyTryShare embodies a credible and sustainable European alternative: a lever to rebuild trust and recreate value at a time when the media needs it most.