Two bits of industry news this week got me thinking about perception, bias, nuance.

First, Ofcom published new recommendations about the prominence of public service content in the streaming age. In essence: as the media landscape shifts decisively to IP delivery, public service media (PSM) must remain easy to find – on smart TVs, on streaming apps, on whatever new interfaces evolve next. Content discovery, Ofcom argues, shouldn’t just be the remit of algorithms or marketing budgets. It’s about safeguarding democratic access to culturally significant work.

The second story was ITV’s half-year results. At first glance: not great. Pre-tax profits down 44% YOY to £99m. Total advertising revenue down 7% to £824m. The kind of headline numbers that invite gloomy verdicts. And yet… digital revenues are up 9% to £271m. Streaming hours up 15% year-on-year to 1.1bn. Monthly active users of ITVX up to 16.4 million. The market response? ITV’s share price rose 13% by the end of the day. Investors, at least, went beyond the knee-jerk.

So, what ties these stories together?

Enter the Bouba/Kiki effect.

If you’re not familiar, it’s a psychological experiment first proposed in the 1920s and refined by VS Ramachandran and Edward Hubbard in 2001. Participants are shown these two shapes. Then they’re told that one is called “Bouba” and the other “Kiki.” Which would you say is which?

If you assigned the name “Bouba” to the soft shape and “Kiki” to the sharp one you’re in the vast majority. Why? Because our brains instinctively map sound to shape. Even abstract associations feel intuitive. Soft sound = soft form. Sharp sound = sharp form.

The Bouba/Kiki effect doesn’t just reveal how we connect sound and shape; it tells us something about how we connect data and meaning. It’s about vibes. We feel our way to conclusions as much as we reason our way there.

Bias against PSBs? A ‘Kiki’ worldview

Let’s go back to Ofcom.

The regulator is, quite rightly, worried that if left entirely to commercial devices and interfaces, UK public service content will be buried – algorithmically disadvantaged, visually sidelined, or literally hard to find. Their recommendations are a defence against that. But not everyone sees it that way.

To some – especially those on the libertarian or populist right – this feels like meddling. “Let the market decide,” is the call. “If people want to watch the BBC or Channel 4 or S4C, they’ll search for it. If not, tough.”

What’s fascinating is that this is often a reaction, not a reasoned argument. For some critics, PSBs are seen as inherently elitist, out of touch, left-leaning, or irrelevant. That view becomes a lens through which any intervention is judged. “Prominence requirements” become censorship. “Safeguarding plurality” becomes control.

But that’s Bouba/Kiki at work. A regulatory move that’s arguably pro-consumer, pro-democracy – even pro-market in the long run – gets read as something spiky, sinister. Because if you already believe PSBs are the enemy, then any move to help them feels wrong.

It’s not the policy that’s sharp, it’s the preconception that is.

ITV’s numbers: seeing Bouba where others see Kiki

And then there’s ITV.

It would be easy – lazy, even – to read the headline figures and call it a crisis. Profits halved. Ad revenue down. That’s a “Kiki” story if ever there was one.

But zoom out.

ITV isn’t pretending that linear is going to rebound. It’s executing Phase Two of its “More Than TV” strategy: betting on streaming, expanding global production, and optimising what’s left of linear for cash rather than growth. In that context, 15% growth in streaming hours and a near-double-digit jump in monthly actives looks like momentum. So does the £271m in digital revenue: steady progress in a long transition.

To borrow from the company’s own commentary, ITV is “supercharging ITVX” and continuing to outperform analyst expectations.

Of course, it’s still an open question whether ITVX becomes a must-have (or must-retain) app in a crowded market. And the cost of content, especially exclusive originals, remains a challenge. But again, how we read these numbers depends on what lens we’re using. If we’re inclined to see ITV as a legacy dinosaur, then these results are further proof of obsolescence. But if we see a traditional broadcaster making a smart, tough pivot in real time, then this week’s results are a cautious Bouba – not a Kiki.

Perception is never neutral

There’s a temptation, in both business and politics, to assume we’re objective. “The facts speak for themselves,” yes?

But they don’t.

We frame facts. We highlight some, ignore others. We interpret, we infer, we assume intent. And most of the time, we do it automatically. Our existing beliefs act as filters. That’s the essence of confirmation bias. It’s also why the Bouba/Kiki effect matters: because it reminds us that even something as simple as assigning a name to a shape is shaped by pre-existing mental patterns.

In media, the stakes are higher. We’re talking about who gets heard. Who gets discovered. Who gets funded. What gets counted as success. It matters whether we perceive a platform like ITVX as rising or struggling. It matters whether we believe PSBs are vital or outdated. Those perceptions drive investment, policy, and even public trust.

Which is why these two stories – Ofcom’s recommendations and ITV’s results – deserve a deeper read. Not just because they’re important in their own right, but because they expose the underlying biases we all bring to the table.

So what’s the takeaway?

Three things.

First, watch your instincts. If your gut tells you something is bad or good, ask why. Are you reacting to the data or to the frame you’ve already built in your mind?

Second, narratives matter. A 44% profit drop sounds terrible. A 15% streaming increase feels hopeful. But both are true. Let’s resist one-dimensional takes.

Third, don’t be too quick to call something Bouba or Kiki.

Sometimes, what looks sharp is actually soft. And what feels soft might have hidden edges.