The best HR advice comes from people who’ve been in the trenches.

That’s what this newsletter delivers.

I Hate it Here is your insider’s guide to surviving and thriving in HR, from someone who’s been there. It’s not about theory or buzzwords — it’s about practical, real-world advice for navigating everything from tricky managers to messy policies.

Every newsletter is written by Hebba Youssef — a Chief People Officer who’s seen it all and is here to share what actually works (and what doesn’t). We’re talking real talk, real strategies, and real support — all with a side of humor to keep you sane.

Because HR shouldn’t feel like a thankless job. And you shouldn’t feel alone in it.

Sign Up Free

ADOTAT+ isn’t a newsletter. It’s a weapon.
While you're still sorting through recycled LinkedIn threads and vaguely worded press releases, your competitors are already quoting our reporting, rewriting their pitches, and closing the deal you thought was a sure thing.

This isn’t theory. This is operational intelligence.

Because most adtech “news” is sanitized press-release theater.
Because marketers are drowning in jargon and begging for signal.
Because media buyers, founders, and holding company leads are tired of pretending that fake reach, mystery metrics, and safe coverage tell the real story.

We built ADOTAT+ for the people who don’t just want to know what’s happening.
They want to know what it means, who’s lying, and how to win anyway.

Let’s just say this:
If you’ve been on a call where someone casually references something that wasn’t in the trades yet, they probably read ADOTAT+.
If your boss forwarded a “crazy story” about vendor collapse or a platform under investigation, odds are it came from us.
CMOs, agency strategy leads, adtech founders, investors—they’re all here.

You’re not too late. But you’re close.

We’re not here to please the platforms. We’re here to pull back the curtain.

Keep letting your competitors rewrite decks with intel you don’t have.
Keep prepping pitches with the same three Gartner stats and a prayer.
Or stop playing catch-up.

Get in the room.

Let’s skip the polite preamble.

Paramount+ is the streaming industry’s equivalent of a guy in a Members Only jacket crashing an NFT party, clutching a DVD box set and yelling about Nielsen ratings.

Sure, we recognize the name. It still owns a studio lot, has a mountain in the logo, and can slap together an IP sizzle reel faster than you can say “Hey, isn’t that guy from Top Gun?”

But in the current streaming economy? It feels like the guy who used to be cool, still wears that Drakkar Noir, and has no idea the party moved three platforms ago.

This isn’t just a branding issue. It’s a full-blown identity collapse—one that’s bleeding into the balance sheet and slowly draining whatever trust was left among media buyers. Everyone in the room knows something’s off, but no one wants to say it.

No one hates Paramount+. That’s not the problem. The problem is that no one cares enough to form an opinion. There’s no emotional hook, no stickiness, no vibe. Ask ten people what Paramount+ is, and you’ll get ten versions of “Wait, is that the one with Yellowstone?” or “Isn’t that CBS with a plus sign?” And to be honest, even their marketing team doesn’t sound sure anymore.

This kind of confusion kills premium perception. As one branding strategist told Adweek, when people get confused, they default to no. The quote was simple, brutal, and uncomfortably accurate: “When people get confused, they fall back on ‘no.’”

That’s the kiss of death in a market where platforms are fighting not just for viewership, but for advertiser attention, brand association, and long-term dollars.

Advertisers don’t just buy impressions—they buy association. A halo. A vibe. Something that makes their creative feel more expensive just by showing up next to it. But Paramount+ offers none of that. Instead, it’s like pitching inventory in a showroom with all the lights half on and no music playing.

Yes, the library is decent. No one’s disputing the IP. Star Trek. Top Gun. SpongeBob. South Park. Survivor. PAW Patrol. NFL. That’s not nothing. That’s a war chest. But without a cohesive identity to stitch it together, it’s not a franchise—it’s a fridge full of leftovers. And not the good kind. The stuff in the back, in Tupperware, behind the soy sauce packets.

And that trickles down. If your platform doesn’t scream identity, your ad sales team is screaming into the void.

Worse still, a third of new signups for Paramount+ come through third-party ecosystems like Amazon Channels, Roku, and Apple. That means they don’t even fully own the customer relationship. It’s like renting a billboard to advertise a house you don’t live in—and then handing the keys to someone else.

It also means Paramount+ has limited first-party data, which severely undercuts its ad product when stacked against Disney’s clean room integrations or Amazon’s shopper-fueled omniscience. And in a world where measurement and optimization are table stakes, Paramount is still pitching its roadmap like it’s a moonshot.

Now layer in the pending Skydance merger and you’ve got the setup for a reboot no one asked for. There’s talk of cuts, bundles, leadership changes, AI-generated content, and a reimagining of what streaming “should be.” In other words, Silicon Valley speak for “burn it all down and hope something cooler rises from the ashes.”

But let’s be honest: a slick new interface and a slightly better dashboard won’t fix a fuzzy identity. Before Paramount+ can become a real contender in the ad-supported future, it needs to figure out what the hell it is. Not what it used to be. Not what it might become. But what it is—today, in a world where Disney owns childhood, Netflix owns couch time, and Amazon owns literally everything else.

Until then, Paramount+ will keep renting space in someone else’s streaming empire, hoping a confused parent clicks “Subscribe” while looking for Jack Ryan.

Stay Bold, Stay Curious, and Know More than You Did Yesterday.

Let’s be clear: Holland is no lightweight. As one of the architects behind Netflix’s original content machine, she greenlit early hits like House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black, and Stranger Things.

She understands not only the economics of subscription streaming, but the alchemy of audience obsession. If there’s someone who can turn a sputtering, identity-crisis-ridden service like Paramount+ into a cohesive offering, she’s on the short list.

Holland’s hire signals that Ellison is serious about transforming Paramount into a tech-enabled storytelling platform—not just a collection of legacy assets. Her experience at Netflix could bring:

But all of that will be undermined if Paramount continues to outsource user acquisition and ad delivery to third-party platforms.

Cindy Holland can make a creative impact. She knows how to develop hits, how to build taste hierarchies inside platforms, and how to deliver IP that moves culture.

But no one—not even a former Netflix rainmaker—can solve Paramount+’s structural issues without the company first fixing its tech stack, reclaiming its audience relationships, and giving ad sales teams something tangible to sell.

If Holland has the political capital to push for those changes—and Ellison gives her the mandate—then yes, she could help rewrite the Paramount+ story.

If not, she’ll simply be rearranging content on a platform that still doesn’t know what it wants to be.

In an industry where subscriber numbers are flaunted like Olympic medals and data is the new gold standard, Paramount+ looks decent on paper. Nearly 79 million subscribers as of late 2024. More than Hulu. Gaining on Disney+ in the U.S. But when you follow the money—the ad money—you hit a wall. A very short wall.

Let’s take a look:

That’s right. Despite being a legitimate player in subscriber count, Paramount+ pulled in less than 1% of Amazon’s ad revenue and roughly a third of Netflix’s, despite having more subscribers than Hulu. This isn’t a glitch—it’s a warning sign.

Paramount+’s ad business is stuck in first gear because much of its user base is off-limits. And it’s not just a technical problem—it’s a self-inflicted one.

About 33% of new Paramount+ subscribers don’t sign up directly. They come in via third-party channels like Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV Channels, and Roku. These aggregators are great for frictionless growth—but terrible for ad monetization.

Why?

Which means Paramount+ can’t sell premium inventory to advertisers. In many cases, Amazon or Apple serves and profits from those ad impressions, leaving Paramount with scraps—or a subscription cut at best.

Third-party access sounds simple—until you realize that Paramount+ doesn’t get user-level data on a huge portion of its ad-supported viewers.

Advertisers want precision, not platform ambiguity. Without behavioral data, Paramount can’t sell audience segments. Can’t retarget. Can’t even verify performance. It’s digital advertising with a blindfold on.

Because they don’t own the interface, Paramount+ can’t deploy advanced ad tech on third-party apps.

The future of streaming ads looks like shoppable video, real-time overlays, context-aware units. Paramount+ is stuck running 15-second mid-rolls inside someone else’s platform UI. That’s not a strategy—it’s a compromise.

Media buyers are not confused. They see where the data is, where the innovation is, and where it isn’t.

And it’s not at Paramount+.

Advertisers aren’t paying for just views. They’re paying for access, control, and attribution. Paramount+ offers none of that at scale.

Despite growing subs, Paramount+ is stuck with:

They’ve reached a subscriber plateau without monetization muscle. And that’s why $500M might actually be generous.

If you’re nodding along so far, here’s your moment of truth: the rest of the ad world is pretending not to notice this mess because it’s inconvenient. Because it implicates them. Because nobody wants to admit their premium CTV strategy is tied to a leaky canoe with no paddle.

And we haven’t even gotten to the real story—the one where ad sales teams are pitching CPMs they can’t control on platforms they don’t own. That’s in Part III.

But fair warning: that’s behind the velvet rope.

Paramount+ didn’t just fall behind. It designed the system that keeps it behind. Third-party distribution made growth easier—but made monetization impossible. The ad-tier is growing fast, but the revenue per user is alarmingly low.

And it’s getting worse:
An estimated 58% of ad-supported Paramount+ viewers now come through third-party pipes. That’s not just a weakness—it’s a ceiling.

Scott Schiller says the Paramount/Skydance merger must unify tech, content, and data to compete.
Travis Scoles promises convergence across platforms.
David Ellison claims he’s building a tech-first media machine.
John Halley is fighting to keep ad dollars from leaking out the back.

But here’s what they’re not telling you:
Paramount+ doesn’t control its users.
It can’t serve its own ads.
It’s being out-built, out-sold, and outmaneuvered by everyone from Netflix to Freevee.
And the inside story? It’s only in ADOTAT+.

📉 Part III: The Audience Mirage
Why most of Paramount+’s ad-supported viewers belong to Amazon, Roku, or Apple—and how that crushes CPMs.

🧠 Part IV: The Convergence Lie
Travis Scoles pitches a seamless ad ecosystem. But the reality? A stitched-together Frankenstein of FAST, Pluto, CBS, and guesswork.

📦 Part V: Inside Ellison’s Tech Playbook
How Skydance is ripping out the legacy stack and rebuilding from scratch—and why culture clashes may blow it up anyway.

📉 Part VI: Ad Sales on Fumes
Why Halley’s team is stuck pitching mid-rolls and apologies while Disney+ rolls out immersive, premium bundles with clean room precision.

Plus:

$50/month. Zero sponsors. Zero sugarcoating.

If you’re in ad sales, media buying, strategy, or investment—and you’re not reading this series—you’re two steps behind.
We name names, show the data, and break the industry’s polite silence.

👉 Subscribe to ADOTAT+
Stay Bold. Stay Curious. And Know More Than You Did Yesterday.