More Late-Night Ad Dollars? What Remains For Kimmel, Fallon

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

Now with “Colbert” gone, what is left for late-night television -- from an advertising perspective? Possibly a bit more.

Mark Marshall, chairman of advertising partnerships at NBCUniversal, says there is still strong demand from advertisers for late-night talk content.

All the attention and controversy may play a role in this. Recent estimates show that for the June 2025-June 2026 period,the three big broadcast late-night shows were up70% in total national TV advertising revenue to $311.6 million -- compared to $184.5 million for the previous 12-month period of June 2024-June 2025. This includes all airings and repeats on other platforms.

All this came before the recent major focus, attention, and controversy (and one major cancellation) on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

Publicly, Paramount Skydance dropped “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” because it was losing money -- amid controversy, new ownership and the perspective of President Trump, who has not had good things to say about this late-night content -- generally.

So how can NBCU’s “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon” and Disney-ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” survive -- when “Colbert” could not?

On the surface, one less competitor in the market could change the math somewhat.

And there is other good news from YouTube, where hosts' monologues, celebrity interviews and musical content appears.

YouTube “views” over the last 12 months have climbed substantially.

Still, from a traditional Nielsen-measured viewership point of view, “Colbert” was the leader with 2.7 million in the first quarter of 2026, followed by Kimmel at 2.5 million and Fallon at 1.3 million.

Can they fill the gap -- and more importantly, will late-night focused advertisers move more money into those shows, and perhaps into Fox News Channel's "Gutfeld!" or Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”?

There are many digital, streaming and other alternatives for those advertisers to consider.

Broadcast still has the reach factor -- and growing hype from YouTube. Is that enough?

And perhaps the Trump Administration can continue to be a good TV marketing tool (winking emoji here).

 Something to share during a sales meeting talking about how retailers realize today media marketing which creates shopping is more about relationship building and persuasion; 
Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. 

Retail Media Stole The Shelf

• by Jac Mansour , Yesterday

The retail shelf as moment of truth is officially over.

Now that retail media networks actively shape shopper intent, people aren’t wandering the aisles looking at packaging.

They are entering the store having made their brand decisions. A beautifully designed pasta sauce jar might catch their eye and earn a trial, but let’s not kid ourselves. The heavy lifting happened online.

With first-party data, every search query, abandoned cart and late-night impulse click feeds an ecosystem that brands can’t access on their own. The result is a symbiotic relationship that is starting to resemble dependency. 

Brands, once the undisputed storytellers, now find themselves paying for proximity to their own customers, and margin compression has become the cost of visibility. If you want to show up where the eyeballs are, you pay -- and then pay more. And continue to pay again and again.

Consider the quiet genius of retail pricing psychology: A product listed at $40 plus $9 shipping suddenly looks less appealing than the exact same item at $49 with “free” shipping.

While the math is identical, the perception is not. Retailers don’t just host the transaction, they frame it, influence it and ultimately own it. 

There are exceptions. Some retailers have sidestepped the race to the bottom by building something more emotional and experiential.

They have turned shopping into a relationship rather than a transaction. But those are the outliers.

For most, the game is scale, data and control. So where does that leave brands? Not so much powerless, but at an inflection point. 

Here are three ways brands can win in the retail media marketplace:

Create demand even before the algorithm does. Retail media excels most at capturing intent, not creating it. Brands that rely exclusively on retail platforms run the risk of becoming interchangeable (optimized for visibility but pretty much stripped of distinction).

The advantage still lies in building demand upstream through storytelling that makes consumers seek out a particular product even before they ever open a retailer’s app. If retailers control discovery, brands should own desire.

Invest in creativity that outlasts attribution windows. Retail media promises precision, dashboard models and the seductive illusion that every single dollar ties directly to a sale. But keep in mind, measurability is not the same as effectiveness. The industry’s fixation on immediate ROI risks flattening the creativity that drives long-term growth.

A great pickle ad on Tuesday doesn’t guarantee a purchase on Wednesday. Influence accumulates in less visible ways (through memory, emotion and subconscious nudges).

That messy middle is where great creative works, even if it doesn’t fit neatly onto a spreadsheet.

Compete on perception, not solely on placement. Retailers don’t just host transactions; they actually frame them. The most effective campaigns don’t mirror reality so much as reflect aspiration. In short, consumers don’t see themselves as they are, but as they want to be. In an environment where ads are, by definition, interruptions, the ones that resonate emotionally are the ones that endure.

There are exceptions. In fact, some retailers have resisted the race to the bottom by building experiences that feel relational, not transactional. But those are generally outliers. For most, the game is scale, data and control.

Which makes creativity both more important, and easier than ever to ignore. Retailers may own the pipes, but brands still own the magic.

So as retailers tighten their grip on distribution, data and discovery, brands face a choice: become tenants in someone else’s media ecosystem, or double down on the kind of storytelling that creates demand no algorithm can fully contain.

The shelf may be digital now, but persuasion is still profoundly human. And that’s a game retailers haven’t completely won -- yet.

 

Commentary

The Future Of Sports Is Holistic, Accountable, Not Just Transactional

• by Steven Graciano , Paul Woolmington , June 2, 2026

Sports marketing has never been more culturally influential -- or more commercially misunderstood. As live sports continue to command attention in an increasingly fragmented media landscape, brands are investing billions into sponsorships, media, athlete partnerships, and experiential activations. 

Yet, too many brands still approach sports marketing transactionally: a logo on a jersey, a short-term partnership around a tentpole event, or a media buy designed to maximize impressions. These tactics may generate reach, but reach alone is no longer enough.

Without strategic integration into the broader media and communications plan, sports investments often fail to create sustained resonance with consumers. That model no longer reflects how audiences engage with sports -- or how brands should generate value from it.

Today, sports are far more than a media channel. They sit at the center of culture, intersecting with entertainment, music, fashion, gaming, technology, and social identity. Fans don’t engage with sports in a single moment; they experience them continuously across platforms, communities, creators, and conversations.

For marketers, that creates a massive opportunity to build relevance and emotional connection. But it also requires a more integrated strategy.

Too many brands still treat sports marketing as a standalone discipline operating outside the broader communications ecosystem. A sponsorship team negotiates rights. A media team buys inventory. Social and experiential teams activate independently. The result is often fragmented storytelling and inconsistent brand impact.

The most effective brands approach sports holistically. Sponsorships should reinforce broader brand positioning. Media investments should shape and amplify narrative and engagement. Social, influencer, experiential, and retail efforts should work together to create a connected, seamless consumer journey. Sports should not sit adjacent to the media plan -- they should function as a fully integrated part of it.

That integration matters because consumers increasingly expect, even demand, authenticity and consistency from brands. Audiences can quickly identify when partnerships feel opportunistic rather than meaningful.

The brands succeeding in sports today are not simply borrowing attention from fandom; they are creating genuine participation within culture. That requires long-term thinking, strategic alignment, and disciplined execution.

Just as importantly, sports marketing must be held to the same standards of accountability as every other marketing investment. The emotional power of sports is undeniable, but it should not exempt brands from demanding measurable outcomes. Too often, marketers rely on visibility, excitement, or hospitality value as proxies for success without clearly defining business objectives.

Brands should apply the same rigor to sports that they apply to digital, performance, or linear media. Clear KPIs, measurement frameworks, attribution models, and audience analytics should be established upfront.

Whether the goal is awareness, brand lift, customer acquisition, loyalty, or sales impact, sports investments must be evaluated against tangible business results.

The future of sports marketing belongs to brands that move beyond transactional thinking and embrace integration, accountability, and cultural fluency.

Sports remains one of the few environments capable of delivering mass reach, emotional engagement, and real-time cultural relevance simultaneously. But unlocking its full value requires treating it not as a siloed sponsorship category, but as a strategic business investment embedded across the broader marketing universe.

Seems local-direct is still a boon for local TV advertising as it is most controllable with the highest net revenue! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

 

Commentary

Half Of Advertisers Buying Programmatic Are Underperforming...

• by Joe Mandese , May 29, 2026

Ever since 19th Century retail marketer John Wannamaker's "which half" quip, the ad industry has been transfixed by binary results, so it's not surprising that the just-released first quarter 2026 edition of the Association of National Advertisers' quarterly "Programmatic Transparency Benchmark" reports has divided programmatic advertising ROI into a tale of two performance cohorts: the "lower half" and the "upper half."

Specifically, the analysis finds the performance gap is spreading between the two.

Utilizing the ANA's proprietary TrueAdSpend analytics metric, the Q1 report found a delta of 21.9 points between the upper and lower half's programmatic advertising results: the upper half converted 54.0% of its programmatic ad spend into "qualified impressions;" while the lower half converted just 32.1%.

Importantly, the ANA found that the differentiation had little do do with programmatic media-buying costs, and more to do with programmatic inventory "quality."

While transaction costs differed by just 2.4 percentage points between the upper and lower cohorts, "media productivity" losses differed by 19.4 percentage points.

"Programmatic performance is increasingly driven by the ability to actively manage quality, price, measurement, and curate supply at scale,” ANA CEO Bob Liodice explains in a statement provided with the report, noting, “Higher-performing advertisers continue to convert spend more efficiently, while lower-performing advertisers are falling further behind.”

Here is something that might be a good idea for a sales meeting! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Commentary

AI Is New And Not New

• by J. Walker Smith , Op-Ed Contributor, May 27, 2026

Perhaps the most interesting thing about AI is that it is new yet nothing new.

AI is certainly new to marketing, and bringing all sorts of new challenges with it, although it may not be as big as headlines would have us believe.

Last year, the CMO Survey of the American Marketing Association, conducted in partnership with Duke and Deloitte, found a mere 17.2% of marketers reporting the use of AI to optimize or automate marketing.

Perhaps the percentage this year will be a step-change higher, but the self-estimated three-year projection by marketers last year was only 44.2%.

Nonetheless, AI is breaking out all over. It is a new force to be reckoned with. But in many ways, AI is nothing but the same reckoning as before.

Indeed, this is typical of marketing innovations. Almost always, they are nothing but new ways of solving the same old problems. Which is definitely the case with AI.

Take search, for example.

Eight Oh Two, an SEO and PPC marketing agency, reported this year that 37% of brand-related searches now start with AI instead of a search engine.

This is a big shift, but it’s hardly anything new. There were headlines galore when Amazon became a viable competitor to Google for initial product searches.

The marketing issue then and now was shifting strategy and investments to meet consumers where they live. AI will require change, but the challenge itself is nothing new. Brands just have to adjust accordingly again.

This is true of every change being wrought by AI right now. Recommendations, in particular.

A recent study by location marketing platform Uberall found that 83% of restaurants are “invisible” to consumers in AI search because they don’t get mentioned when people ask AI for restaurants “nearby.”

But this, too, is nothing new. We have known for a long time about the importance of showing up on the first page of Google search results. That’s where the eyeballs are.

So, getting there is the task of getting in front of consumers. Broadly speaking, this is the necessity of getting into the consideration set, or at least the first step in doing so. That’s what SEO is all about.

For AI, it’s called GEO. Which is just a new name for an old challenge. It’s about crafting content and brand information that will get picked up by LLMs. LLMs are different, but what they do and the strategic challenge of influencing them is the same.

Influence is another thing about AI that is nothing new. Increasingly, people are relying on AI for product comparisons and purchasing recommendations.

In this sense, AI is the influencer of demand. But influencing influencers is a long-standing task in marketing -- from children influencing mothers to friends influencing friends to content creators influencing followers on social media.

Marketers have been at this for so long that they have gotten very good at influencing the influencers. Marketers may need to go back to school on AI, but the basic idea is no different than before.

Much of this involves getting the attention of LLMs, and attention was the hot issue in marketing immediately before AI appeared on the scene.

In fact, attention is an issue as old as marketing itself and was the reason why the Advertising Research Foundation developed the original inverted pyramid back in 1961.

That funnel was not a purchase funnel, but a funnel for media-buying that began with the necessity of getting attention. All AI is doing is forcing marketers to solve the same old problem again. The answer will be different, but the issue is the same as always.

Marketers are also concerned that AI only cares about facts, not emotions, and that AI will operate independently of efforts by brands to enforce consistency of messaging with consumers. But these, too, are not new concerns.

It was concern about consistency that kept the Coca-Cola Company from using its flagship brand name with its first diet cola, thus naming it Tab instead.

It was a concern when Larry Light introduced the idea of brand journalism using many individual stories to deliver McDonald’s “I’m Likin’ It” campaign.

It has been an ongoing concern as media have proliferated and fragmented. It is certainly an issue in managing the modern-day army of independent influencers that brands are using as gateways to consumers.

So, there is nothing new about this concern when it comes to AI. Brands will have to manage consistency differently for AI, but the issue of consistency is an age-old challenge in marketing.

In these ways and others, AI is not new at all. Yet, there is one thing about AI that is very different and new. In years past, humans have been the audience for awareness, attention, recommendations, consideration, influence and consistency. That’s true for AI right now, but this is sure to change.

The way I’ve described it before is to say that marketers will have to learn how to “advertise to algorithms.” Which is to say that AI is going to transform shoppers into agents as consumers delegate shopping and buying. Hence, much of the marketplace ahead will be AI-to-AI. 

Everything about marketing in the past has been designed for human audiences. Every theoretical concept, every practical application, everything has been about persuading humans.

So far, AI is just another tool for persuading humans, and thus the same challenges as ever. But when consumers hand off shopping and buying to AI agents, humans will be completely out of the loop.

This is not an issue that marketers have had to face before. Humans have always been the target.

But algorithms or AI itself will soon be the target. That’s fundamentally new. All the other stuff is old wine in a new bottle. AI agents are a new vintage.

Until then, marketers would do well not to get ahead of themselves or allow themselves to be intimidated by the changes at work with AI.

The nature of today’s challenges are identical to the challenges of the past. Marketers have successfully met those challenges. There is no reason to suspect anything different now -- as long as it’s people at the receiving end.

 

Commentary

CBS News Shocker: Weiss Hires TV News Novice To Run '60 Minutes'

• by Adam Buckman , Featured Columnist, 7 hours ago

CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss is bringing in an outsider with no prior experience in TV news to run “60 Minutes.”

The announcement on Thursday was shocking news. “60 Minutes” is the third-highest rated show in all of network prime time, behind two CBS dramas, “Tracker” and “Marshall.”

The show is the highest-rated and most consistent performer of any show to ever come out of the CBS news division. 

The newbie is a guy named Nick Bilton, 47. He is described in a CBS press release as a print journalist, book author, podcaster and a maker of documentaries such as 2021’s “Fake Famous,” a documentary about internet fame, available on HBO Max.

Nowhere does his experience include TV network news reporting or producing. And yet, he has been hired to lead the most storied news program in the history of television.

“Nick is one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time,” said a prepared statement from Weiss. 

“We have huge ambition for ‘60 Minutes’ to reach new heights through deep, revelatory journalism that breaks news, exposes wrongdoing, widens public understanding and forces accountability from every institution and every center of power,” the statement said.

The statement raises questions. What do “entrepreneurial” skills have to do with running “60 Minutes”? And in what way is “60 Minutes” itself “entrepreneurial”?

Moreover, Weiss’s vision for “60 Minutes,” as stated above, reads more like a description of how the show is now, and how it has been for 58 years.

It is a brand that is already well-known for its revelatory journalism that breaks news, exposes wrongdoing, widens public understanding and forces accountability from every institution and every center of power.

These are the very assets that Weiss’ statement implies that the show has not yet reached. 

“New heights”? It is hard to understand how a show that has already reached every height in its field can now reach new ones with an executive producer who has no experience in anything like it.

As the show’s new executive producer, Bilton replaces Tanya Simon, 55, a 30-year veteran of CBS News, who held the job for a little over a year.

Simon was just the fourth executive producer in the history of “60 Minutes” and the first woman in the role.

Among the close-knit staff of “60 Minutes,” Simon was one of the family. She is the daughter of the late “60 Minutes” correspondent Bob Simon, and the show’s correspondents and production staff all supported her for the position of executive producer.

The hiring of the news novice Bilton to take the helm of “60 Minutes” is part of an ongoing shakeup of the show being undertaken by Weiss, the internet firebrand who is also an outsider that had no experience in TV news at any level when she was brought in as editor-in-chief of CBS News last October.

During the Weiss reign, life at “60 Minutes” has been turbulent. Long-time correspondent Anderson Cooper left the show earlier this month, and correspondent Cecilia Vega, who came to the show in 2023, is also leaving.

In addition, CBS News declined to renew the contract of Sharyn Alfonsi, the “60 Minutes” correspondent who publicly criticized Weiss last December for yanking a story from “60 Minutes” at the last minute.

In the story, Alfonsi reported on a maximum-security prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration was sending Venezuelan migrants.

Weiss’s move was interpreted by many as an effort to placate Trump. In a statement this week, Alfonsi reportedly said the decision not to renew her contract is “a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting.”

For all I know, there may be many problems at CBS News to which Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski could devote their time.

By all appearances, “60 Minutes” is not one of them. This is a case of fixing something that isn’t broken.

But Weiss is the one who reportedly told CBS News staffers last November that she intends to blow things up.

But if she intends to blow up “60 Minutes,” then she may as well torch the entire news division too. 

 

Not Every Brand Should Jump On The ChatGPT Ads Bandwagon

• by Molly Lopez , Yesterday

ChatGPT’s self-serve ads rollout is not just a cool new feature for businesses. It is a signal that the tech ecosystem has entered a new era, one where platforms can move from user acquisition to user monetization faster than ever before.

Facebook launched in 2004. Five years later, it opened its self-serve ads platform. LinkedIn launched in 2003. Five years later, it did the same.

ChatGPT was made available to the public in November 2022. OpenAI is now rolling out a beta self-serve Ads Manager that allows advertisers to register, set budgets, upload ads, launch campaigns, and view performance directly in the platform.

That pace is not just fast. It is a statement.

Typically, ad platform rollouts are slow for a reason. There is internal validation, user trust concerns, limited testing with select partners.

OpenAI is doing something much bolder. It is building the plane while flying, and it is letting more than just Fortune 1000 brands and giant agencies get a seat on board.

That creates real opportunity. It also creates real risk.

The benefit is obvious: intent. People do not come to ChatGPT just to scroll. They come to solve, compare, research and make decisions. That creates a completely different advertising environment than traditional social media.

For the right business, that is incredibly valuable.

But “right business” is the key phrase.

The companies that should be testing ChatGPT Ads are the ones with experimental media budget, not brands looking for a silver bullet.

Do not move all your dollars here at once. There will be a learning curve for everyone, including the advertisers, the agencies, and the platform itself.

This also makes the most sense for companies that already have a strong Google Ads presence and know what keywords, questions, and pain points actually convert. If you know what people search before they buy from you, you are in a much better position to understand where ChatGPT may fit into the journey.

It is also worth testing if you are already seeing organic traction from AI search. If customers are telling you they found you through ChatGPT, or if your analytics are starting to show AI-assisted discovery, that is a signal worth paying attention to.

Where brands need to be careful is trying to force ChatGPT into a branding channel. This is not the place to simply “show up” because everyone is talking about it. The best use cases will be helpful, specific, and tied to complex problems.

For example, someone asking, “How do I build a pond in my backyard?” could be a great moment for a landscaping company to enter the conversation. But a juice brand trying to bid on “creative snack ideas for toddlers” may feel like a stretch unless the answer is genuinely useful.

The brands that win here will not be the loudest. They will be the most helpful.

So yes, companies should pay attention to ChatGPT Ads. Yes, they should test. Yes, they should learn early.

But the smartest brands will not jump on the bandwagon just to say they were first. They will enter with strategy, restraint, and a very clear understanding of what value they can provide before they ask for the click.