Rebecca Fieldhouse Fryer

Messaging problems rarely start with bad writing. They usually start before anyone has agreed on what the evidence actually supports. I've seen teams jump straight into decks, narratives, or positioning because timelines are tight and momentum matters. That makes sense. But when claims aren’t solidified early, the work quietly accumulates debt that will have to be paid eventually. – endless wordsmithing – circular review comments – Death by a thousand red pens in committee – New debates over language everyone thought was “approved” None of that is a talent problem. It’s a sequencing problem. Investing in evidence-based clarity and getting clear on the facts before you need them doesn’t slow teams down—it usually does the opposite. Where have you seen the biggest challenges in messaging? Does it show up at project kickoff, review, or leadership alignment?

2

2 Comments

3 thoughts on the AdCP launch: 1. I love how big the swing is. Scope3 and team explicitly framed the shift to agentic as on par with the other transformational platform shifts of the past 20–30 years (print → digital, desktop → mobile, manual → programmatic). This is exactly the level you want to communicate on if you are or want to be the industry leader: “We are inventing the future.” Compare that to the usual adtech discourse: litigating Google’s crimes, debating technicalities, chasing marginal improvements. There’s a time for that. But there’s a reason Brian O'Kelley has such a big audience. He takes swings that make everyone else blush. 2. They framed agentic advertising around outcomes, not just efficiency. Yes, efficiency is part of it. But the real big idea is making advertising dramatically more effective by solving the signal-loss problem between the sell side and buy side. When you improve communication and deeply understand content and audiences, performance improves. It’s not about saving 10%. It’s about growing the pie. 3. Terence Kawaja tied it back to the core battle: open web vs. walled gardens. Google, Meta, and AppLovin make advertising easy, and they sell outcomes. You cannot win if you’re selling complicated gobbledygook and writing dissertations to prove your inventory is actually better than AppLovin’s ROAS. There’s a reason AppLovin is worth more than the rest of the Lumascape combined. The speakers did a great job explaining how agentic advertising addresses that problem, putting the open internet on offense. Lots to learn here from a marketing perspective and important debates about the future of the industry. What did you think?

85

30 Comments

Josh Blyskal from Profound came to Tech SEO Connect with something we don't see enough of in this space: actual data at scale. His team analyzed over 250 million AI responses and 3 billion citations across eight major answer engines to understand what actually drives visibility in AI search. The findings challenge some assumptions and confirm others.

1

🚨 New episode drop: I got cited in ChatGPT. (Ahead of Semrush.) Yup. My tiny blog showed up in a ChatGPT answer about thought leadership examples. For months, I’ve been running experiments to figure out what helps content surface in AI search. In this week’s Found in AI, I break down exactly how it happened: -How I structured the post that got cited -Why backlinks mattered less than clarity and authority -What smaller brands can do to compete in generative search -The shift from “keywords” to “questions” that AI actually understands If you’ve been wondering how to get your brand mentioned in ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Gemini, save this episode. And if you want these experiments (and the results) sent straight to your inbox each week, subscribe to The Visibility Report. Remember: Keywords got us clicks. Insights get us cited. Links for all the things in the comments.

15

6 Comments