pets

Gen Z Choosing Pets Over Kids

• by Tanya Gazdik , Yesterday

Asked what they'd prefer to have in the future, more Americans now choose pets over children, according to new data from The Harris Poll.

Some younger owners are cutting their own vacations and even medical appointments to splurge on their animals, according to The Harris Poll’s “The State of Pets.”

The survey was conducted online within the U.S. by The Harris Poll from April 24 to 26, among a nationally representative sample of 2,070 U.S. adults aged 18 and over. Groups polled were 338 Gen Z (ages 18-29), 721 millennials (ages 30-45), 506 Gen X (ages 46-61), and 505 boomers (ages 62 and older). There were 1,625 pet owners in the total.

Tim Osiecki, director of thought leadership and trends at The Harris Poll, answered a few questions from Marketing Daily about the pet trends report. 

Marketing Daily: Which findings surprised even your research team?

Tim Osiecki: What stands out most is the depth of commitment. Nearly three in 10 Gen Z and millennial pet owners say they’ve gone into debt because of pet expenses, which is a striking signal of how high a priority pets have become. 

Marketing Daily: What is the single biggest misconception marketers have about today’s pet owner?

Osiecki: The biggest misconception is that pet ownership is still just a purchase behavior. It’s not. For many consumers, especially younger ones, it’s a life-organizing identity. We’re seeing that pets are influencing how people spend, where they live, and even how they think about family. So the real shift for marketers is to stop seeing pet owners as a niche audience, and start seeing them as modern households making meaningful life decisions around their pets.

Marketing Daily: The report suggests pets are increasingly treated like children. At what point does this become more than just a marketing trope and actually change how brands should position themselves? 

Osiecki: It becomes more than a marketing trope the moment people start making structural decisions around their pets, and this report makes clear that’s already happening. When people are moving to more expensive housing that allows pets, designing parts of their home for them, and making real financial tradeoffs to protect pets' quality of life, brands have to move beyond symbolic messaging. At that point, this isn’t just an emotional insight, it’s a business insight. Brands need to position themselves around practical inclusion, not just pet-friendly language. 

Which non-pet categories have the biggest opportunity because of these shifts?

Osiecki: The biggest opportunities are in categories that shape everyday life: housing, travel, hospitality, financial services, automotive, and healthcare. If pets are now part of the household decision-making unit, then every category that touches the home, mobility, money, or wellbeing has a chance to rethink its value proposition. The most forward-looking brands will recognize that this isn’t about adding a pet perk on the side. It’s about building products, services, and experiences around pet-inclusive living.

Marketing Daily: Should automotive, travel, hospitality, housing, banking, or healthcare companies be thinking differently about pet owners?

Osiecki: These industries should be thinking about pet owners as a major consumer segment with specific expectations, pain points, and loyalty triggers. In automotive, that may mean designing for safer, easier travel with pets. In travel and hospitality, it means making pet accommodation seamless rather than restrictive.

In housing, it means moving beyond tolerance to true pet-forward design. And in banking and healthcare, it means recognizing that pet owners increasingly want financial tools, insurance solutions, and benefits that reflect the real role pets play in their lives. The broader lesson is that pet owners don’t just want permission — they want consideration 

Marketing Daily:  Which trend do you believe marketers are underestimating today?

Osiecki: The most underestimated trend is that the pet economy is becoming an infrastructure story, not just a spending story. A lot of brands still think about pets in terms of accessories, treats, or cute content. But what this report really shows is that pets are influencing systems: housing, travel, benefits, finance, and family planning. That’s a much bigger shift. The brands that will stand out are the ones that don’t just market to pet owners, but actually make pet-inclusive life easier to navigate.

 

Commentary

Consumers Don't Move Through Funnels Like They Used To

• by Danyelle Horrillo , July 8, 2026

Marketers have traditionally relied on the funnel to understand customer behavior. Awareness leads to consideration, consideration leads to conversion, reengage and repeat -- it’s simple, logical, and easy to build strategies around.

To be clear, I don’t think the funnel is dead. However, the challenge is that consumers no longer move through the funnel the way they once did.

Today’s buying journeys are faster, far less predictable, and far more interconnected. Consumers can discover a brand, research it, validate it through reviews, compare alternatives, and make a purchase decision in minutes. They can also re-enter the process at any point, often influenced by existing customers.

The middle funnel isn't disappearing -- it's shrinking.

Historically, the consideration stage took time. Consumers gathered information, weighed options, and gradually moved toward a decision. Marketers often had weeks or months to influence that process, depending on the purchase.

Today, much of that research happens before brands even know a consumer exists. Search engines, social platforms, reviews, comparison sites, online communities and AI tools have made information more accessible than ever. Consumers are arriving with a level of education and confidence that once required multiple touchpoints over a longer timeframe.

Consideration hasn’t disappeared. It just happens faster, in a different order, and often out of view. In many cases, consumers enter the journey already halfway through it.

Not everyone starts at the top anymore.

Traditional funnel models assume customers begin with awareness and move sequentially. Behavior is rarely that linear. Consumers might gather information from sources we may not control -- discovering a brand through a friend’s recommendation, a review, creator content, search, or even a retargeting ad. By the time they engage, they may already understand the product and whether it fits their needs. This creates a challenge since we often build campaigns around where we think customers should be instead of where they actually are.

The purchase is no longer the finish line.

The strongest argument for viewing the journey as a cycle is what happens after conversion, and that’s driven by today’s social-first environment. I

n traditional funnel thinking, the purchase is the end of the story. But today's customers don't disappear after making a purchase. They leave reviews, create social content, recommend products, answer questions, and shape opinions in both online and offline spaces.

In many ways, today’s customers power tomorrow’s awareness. A positive experience can generate advocacy that introduces new consumers to a brand. Those new consumers begin their own journeys, influenced by the people who came before them.

What this means for marketers

As customer behavior evolves, strategies need to evolve in tandem. This doesn't mean abandoning the funnel. It’s still a valuable framework for organizing messaging, measurement, and planning. But it’s time to treat it as a guide rather than a rigid map.  Marketers should consider how channels, content, and customer experiences work together across a fluid, dynamic & interconnected journey, rather than a prescribed path.

Customers are discovering brands in new places, researching on their own terms, moving through consideration faster. And they’re influencing future buyers after they become customers themselves.

 

Gen Z, Millennials Rejecting AI For Films... And On TV?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

Amid mounting concerns over AI, TV scripted shows may be safe for now -- especially considering what has been happening lately in the movie business.

Looking at the success of two early-summer season films, “Obsession” and “Backrooms" -- both low-budget theatrical horror movies that came out of nowhere to become blockbusters -- gives us some clues.

The obvious signal is that original concept, non-franchise filmmaking trends reveal that the movie business is not dead.

But for the broader view -- other entertainment content -- it means more.

What does this mean for AI-generated content? The answer is: it's not good.

Prominent film director Christopher Nolan said it more plainly, noting the success of the two movies and the rejection of seemingly “AI Slop”-produced content is significant. 

“So much energy has been expended on bringing in AI, but if you look at that generation’s reaction, they’re utterly rejecting it..... Their judgment of AI slop has been immediate and harsh. “

Adding a perspective, with regard to "Obsession" and “Backrooms," Nolan says: “Those films are so mysterious and ruminative. I mean, parts of 'Backrooms' are like David Lynch at his most obscure. And yet young people can’t get enough of them.”

However, this has not stopped some entertainment companies from at least dipping their toes in the water.

One company is Artlist -- a digital asset company that provides stock footage, templates, and royalty-free music to video creators.

It recently created a number of scripted TV-like content series under Artlist TV that primarily runs on YouTube. The service started up in June with shows covering recent Hollywood themes, including “The Arc," a historical action series of a soldier in 1600s Japan; “Terrible People,” a dark comedy tracking a high-stakes corporate PR publicist; “The Sequence”, a mystery-thriller about an ordinary man who inherits memories that belong to a stranger, and “Deception," a suspense thriller involving a missing woman who is replaced by a perfect clone.

Comments from viewers referred to characters that seemed "wooden” and cliches.

For the first episode of the show “The Arc,” Artlist reveals in the description that it is “the first Artist TV original series created with AI.” That episode pulled in 1,700 views so far on YouTube, and viewers had mixed feelings.

At least three comments described the content as “amazing work.” 

And then was this comment: “This is embarrassing and I’m honestly shocked people who call themselves professionals would release something so obviously discrediting.”

Overall, in his interview with The Telegraph, Nolan sees this as having greater impact: "I've never seen a more rapid wholesale dismissal of a supposedly foundational jump in technology in my lifetime."

More art in Artlist’s efforts may be needed in AI for some critical reviewers and observers.

 

Paramount-WBD Now: Real Effect Of A 12-State Lawsuit?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Today

Paramount Skydance's near-completed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery is not so complete. Or near.

Twelve U.S. states just filed a lawsuit to stop the deal, with the primary reason being the combination will curb entertainment content/distribution, putting the TV/movie marketplace into fewer hands, which will hurt entertainment employment for the future.

This comes at what may be a difficult time for Paramount Skydance, with the company looking to complete its $111 billion deal.

This will significantly delay many things on the company’s big list to address.

What really happens with those rapidly declining (through still profitable) cable TV networks the company would own -- around 50 basic channels in total?

Does the company really look to sell them off, combine them, or re-imagine them as exclusive digital and web-based platforms to make them more efficient?

A more high-profile issue is the TV/streaming news channel operations -- the long-time CBS News group (including continued upheaval at shows like “60 Minutes”) and its likely combination with CNN?

What about a movie-studio combination of Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros? Skydance has promised that total output of theatrical movies will stay nearly at the same levels: 15 per year each for Paramount and Warner Bros.

But many are skeptical that all will remain the same -- or what company employment will be like at those studios. For one, Paramount has talked up “content spending reductions” to investors.

And there is this to consider: If the deal gets delayed after October every quarterly period that goes by means Paramount needs to pay WBD and its shareholders a “ticking” fee -- 25 cents a share per quarter. This could amount to $700 million every three months.

Now, adding just under $1 billion to a $111 billion merger deal price by itself won’t, by itself, kill off the deal -- one that is mostly funded by Larry Ellison, father of David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance. Ellison has a net worth of around $200 billion currently.

Long term debt for Paramount Skydance? A massive $79 billion as a result of a $111 billion merger deal price tag.

What is the real picture going forward?

Prediction market platform Kalshi gives roughly 79% odds to the prospective deal being completed. But another 16% say no deal will be completed by anyone taking over WBD until a year from now, in July 2027.

How about the possibility that Netflix returns to make another new WBD bid? Just a 3% chance.

More storylines to consider.

Getting back to work

 Hey All: Apologize for the many days of absence. Following a visit to my primary care physician, I had to see a surgeon and on July 7th, I had surgery. It's been a long time for me not sharing the latest TV media marketing, management and weekly sales and marketing for you on my blog, LeNoble's Media Sales Insights for so long a time. I'm back and will ask you to please send me a quick note to drphilipjay@gmail.com so I can continue this blog for you and your sales teams. 

Hope to hear from you so I may get started again....Best always 

Why Sales Coaching Needs a New Playbook

 

Why Sales Coaching Needs a New Playbook

The goal is not to coach more, but to coach with intent.

Rachael Buchler

June 22, 2026

 

Share

Sales organizations are under growing pressure. Revenue targets are higher, margins are tighter and buying cycles continue to lengthen. Many teams are still finding ways to hit the number, but performance is becoming harder to sustain. One of the clearest signs of strain sits in the middle of the organization: the frontline sales manager.

Most leaders agree that managers are critical to results. Far fewer have modernized how managers coach. Gartner research shows that only a small minority of sales managers believe they lead high‑performing teams, even though most organizations identify frontline management as essential to revenue performance. Many sales teams remain dependent on a handful of top sellers to carry bookings. When success relies on heroics rather than consistency, risk builds quickly.

The issue is not that managers are not coaching. It’s that they are coaching everyone, on everything, all the time.

Equal Coaching Doesn’t Drive Equal Performance

Many managers distribute seller coaching time evenly across their teams, believing fairness leads to improvement. In reality, equal coaching produces uneven returns.

Manager time is scarce and valuable. Treating it like a blanket activity spreads its impact too thin. High‑performing teams recognize that coaching should be focused where it can deliver the greatest performance lift. The goal is not to coach more, but to coach with intent.

That requires managers to be selective. Not every seller needs coaching at the same time. Some sellers are receptive and capable of applying feedback quickly. Others may struggle with motivation, role fit or fundamentals that coaching itself will not fix. Concentrating effort on sellers who can absorb and apply coaching most effectively strengthens bench depth and reduces reliance on top performers. It also frees managers to address performance challenges directly when coaching is not the right solution.

Skill, Will and Coachability Matter More Than Tenure

A modern coaching approach begins by evaluating the following factors beyond surface-level performance outcomes: skill, will and coachability.

Skill reflects whether a seller has the capabilities needed to execute in role. Will reflects motivation and commitment. Coachability determines whether the feedback given translates into actual changed behavior. Sellers may accept advice, but do they act on it consistently?

These distinctions are important because coaching is not performance management. When managers attempt to solve disengagement or chronic underperformance through coaching alone, they waste time and frustrate both sides. Effective managers separate coaching for growth from conversations that reset expectations or clarify role fit.

Prioritizing coachability helps ensure that coaching time produces real improvement rather than surface‑level agreement.

What Effective Managers Coach

The strongest managers focus coaching where behavior directly influences results: mindset, deal judgment and win‑driving behaviors.

Mindset shapes how sellers interpret risk and opportunity. In complex buying environments, sellers often rush to pitch due to a belief barrier of needing to prove value fast. Coaching mindset helps sellers slow down, reshaping how to diagnose customer problems and engage buyers more productively.

Deal judgment determines how sellers decide their next move. Weak judgment shows up when sellers mistake buyer interest with buyer readiness, advancing deals without clear buyer ownership or validated evidence. Coaching judgment improves decision quality earlier in the sales cycle, when outcomes are still changeable.

Win‑driving behaviors are the high-causal habits of top performers that consistently improve sales results. By coaching these behaviors, such as early stakeholder multithreading across sellers’ execution routines, managers drive repeatability instead of one‑off advice.

The Real Unlock Is the Manager

The most overlooked element of sales performance is the frontline manager’s ability to translate insight into action.

AI, analytics and dashboards do not change seller behavior on their own. Managers do. Gartner research shows that managers who use data to focus coaching on the highest‑impact opportunities are more than four times as likely to exceed expected profit growth. Yet, only a small portion of frontline managers primarily use data to guide coaching discussions. Sales organizations must present information in a consumable, actionable way so managers can apply it in the right context and drive clear next steps for sellers.

Coaching That Scales Performance

Sales complexity is not going away. Teams that continue to rely on hero sellers and generic coaching will struggle to scale. Those that succeed will empower managers with a new coaching playbook that treats time as a strategic asset, focuses on capability over activity, and intervenes when leverage is highest.

Coaching does not need to be louder or more frequent. It needs to be sharper, more selective and better timed. When managers coach with precision, they do more than improve individual performance. They build resilience into the entire revenue organization.

 

Nielsen: YouTube Gains, Fox-Roku Would Be Third

• by Wayne Friedman , 9 hours ago

YouTube continues to grow its share of total TV/streaming viewers by a media distributor -- with 13.4%, up a full share point versus the same time period a year ago, according to Nielsen's Media Distributor Index.

At the same time, Walt Disney slipped around half a share point to 10.3% (vs. 10.7%). NBCUniversal/Versant Media remained the same with a combined 8.2% share. Breaking this down, NBCU was 5.9% and Versant Media, the former NBCU cable network, was at 2.3%.

Paramount Skydance slipped a full share point to 7.9% (from 8.9%) while Netflix rose to 7.8% (from 7.5%), followed by Fox Corp at 6.9%, up from 6.8%.

Looking ahead, Fox's proposed acquisition of Roku would give the combined company a 9.9% share -- to land in third place behind Disney. A year ago, a combined Fox Corp./Roku would have landed at 9.2%.

Nielsen also released its monthly “Gauge” total TV viewing for April 2026, which examines specific types of platforms (broadcast, cable and streaming) and individual streaming platforms.

Streaming was at 47.6% (vs. 44.3% a year ago), and cable networks came in at 21.6% (vs. 24.5% in April 2025)).

Broadcast slipped below 20% for the first time -- to 19.9% (vs. 20.8% the year before). Broadcast drama was the most-watched genre within the overall drama category, with a 28% share. CBS’ “Tracker” and “Marshals” and ABC’s “High Potential” were top performers.

Cable was strongest with viewing from the closing days of NCAA’s “March Madness” event, Masters golf tournament, NBA playoffs.

Streaming platforms posting month-to-month growth included YouTube, Prime Video, Tubi, and Warner Bros. Discovery streaming platforms (HBO Max, discovery+).

Nielsen says the Gauge and its Media Distributor Index have not yet shifted to account for the ARF DASH-based media-related universe estimates. That release is scheduled to start up this fall