While the word "Agentic" refers to one who is self-directed, can act independently, function autonomously and can make their own decisions and make goal directed decisions. Even as a consumer, the same concept applies related to brand preference and management. So now the concept branches out a bit allowing for an agentic AI agent to shop for the consumer and perhaps, substituting a preferred brand to a new brand. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Commentary

Agentic Brand Equity

• by Joe Mandese , 5 hours ago

"Half of shelf equity is reset to zero," reads the nightmarish headline of a press release prompting today's post about Americans' agentic shopping plans. The release was about a new study of grocery shoppers, which found that 49% of them would trust an AI substituting an alternative brand for a consumer's preferred brand.

The study found a "blend of consumer" needs would drive that agentic brand switching behavior, but the No. 1 reason stated by 54% of the respondents was "finding a better-value alternative."

The study goes on to note that a sizable share (39%) of American grocery consumers fear AI would buy the wrong item for them, while 30% trust AI to shop for them.

Of course, no one knows what consumers will actually do until agentic grocery shopping actually scales, but I suspect that the projection is accurate, and may actually understate how many people actually embrace agentic shopping, because in the end, I believe most consumers gravitate to technology that provides convenience, and ease-of-use, more than fear getting the wrong thing.

Time will tell, but my main reason for flagging this study is its conclusion about grocery shelf equity, which I think is completely wrong.

If agentic shopping scales, shelf equity will not be reset, it will just transfer from one shopping entity (a consumer) to another (an agent).

In other words, grocery -- and other retail brands too -- will need to figure out how to build equity with agents.

I know the concept of agent brand equity is a new one -- and maybe an antithetical one -- for many marketers and agencies, but some have already begun building models to measuring and optimizing it. It's what Omnicom agency MRM has been working on within its ARM (AI Relationship Marketing) practice.

In other words, think of it as the new CRM, or consumer loyalty, or brand equity, or whatever old school framework you've been using to understanding the extrinsic value consumers place on a brand -- not just for groceries, or retail, but for any non-commoditized brand where goodwill value still matters.

The only thing you have to change to embrace the concept is substituting the word "agent" for "consumer," because the next generation of consumer shopping agents will effectively be proxies for consumer purchasing decisions, including the amount of value they attribute to the brand vs. its competitors.

 

Commentary

Cultural Trust As Currency: Why Black Consumers Shift Spending Due To Brand Values

• by Charlene Polite Corley , June 5, 2026

Black consumers continue to shape culture that captures attention, but tokenism alone is not enough to earn loyalty. Increasingly, Black consumers are making intentional decisions about where they spend their money, and those decisions are directly tied to whether a brand demonstrates real cultural understanding and alignment. In times of economic uncertainty, that bar is only getting higher.

The data makes the stakes even clearer. According to Nielsen's 2025 Attitudes on Representation Study, over half of Black consumers say a brand's stance on social issues is a major factor in their purchasing decisions, and 70% say they will stop buying from brands perceived as devaluing their community, up from 66% in 2023. That upward trend signals that Black consumer expectations are growing, and brands that are not keeping up the pace are actively losing ground.

What drives this shift is visibility and relevance in practice. Black audiences are more than twice as likely to rank authentic and accurate representation of their race or ethnicity as the strongest motivation to engage with new content compared to respondents overall. Additionally, 67% of Black consumers say they pay more attention to brands that reflect their culture, compared to 46% overall.

For marketers, this gap represents both a risk and a clear opportunity. Brands that invest in authentic cultural representation have a larger, more responsive audience ready to engage and convert.

Where and how brands show up matters significantly. Fifty-six percent of Black consumers prefer to buy based on ads that appear in culturally relevant content, compared to 35% overall. This is not a preference to ignore. It means that media placement is a value signal, not solely a targeting decision. Showing up in the right cultural contexts communicates that a brand understands and respects the audience it is trying to reach.

Earning attention from Black consumers requires cultural fluency built over time, through community partnerships, creator collaborations and storytelling that reflects the full range of Black experiences. For example, Black suburban consumers are among the most likely to agree that a brand’s stance on social issues influences their purchasing decisions, at 59%, compared to 51% of the suburban total, according to Nielsen’s 2025 Advanced Audience Attitudes Study. Strategies that treat Black audiences as monolithic will miss this nuance entirely.

Ultimately, brands that earn lasting loyalty are the ones that approach cultural understanding as an ongoing commitment—and a competitive advantage. Black consumers watch to see how brands show up consistently, how they listen and how they invest the time to understand the communities they are trying to reach. When consumers feel genuinely seen, they respond with loyalty and advocacy. When they feel like an afterthought, they spend elsewhere.

In today's marketplace, cultural trust is a business metric, and it is one that Black consumers are actively scoring every day.

This post was previously published in an earlier edition of Marketing Insider.

 

Commentary

'60 Minutes': Top News Show, Makes Money - But That Isn't Enough

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, June 4, 2026

“60 Minutes” has been a rare show on television -- a highly rated weekly news series and one that, according to reports, was also profitable.

So why change top executives at CBS News -- including its executive producers -- and oust on-air correspondents of the show itself?

Critics keep coming back to the high-profile, overriding reasons -- President Trump didn’t like it, and new owner Skydance Media wanted to make nice with the Trump administration.

CBS’s “60 Minutes” is the top news show in all of television (broadcast, streaming, cable) with a season-to-date average so far of 9.1 million Nielsen-measured viewers.

Not only that, but it is up 9% from a year ago (8.3 million) -- another rare feat -- and has seen a 5% gain in the adult 25-54 demographic.

The show consistently wins major awards -- well over 140 for news/documentaries and Primetime Emmy Awards.

But for some reason, all of this is not enough.

The weak explanation from company officials is some vague all-encompassing descriptor that they need to bring the show into the “digital” age.

So tell me -- what does that mean? “60 Minutes” has been on the internet for decades.

Social media? Its presence doubled over the past year to 2.5 billion video views on social media, according to the company, also adding 17 million followers this past year. Its YouTube “60 Minutes Full Episodes” area on the streaming platform has 4.13 million subscribers.

Want more? It is also a staple on Paramount+. The company touts that the premium streaming service has a “deep backlog of previous seasons, allowing you to stream past episodes, interviews, and ‘60 Minutes Overtime’ segments.”

Let’s get down to the money -- at least an analysis of advertising revenue. Over the last 12 months (June 2025 to June 2026) the weekly show is estimated to have pulled in $68.8 million in national TV advertising -- 9.2 billion impressions from 1,899 airings, according to iSpot, and $67.8 million in the previous 12-month period.

And this revenue doesn’t even include the show’s major role in pulling carriage fees and subscriber revenues.

Nor does it include local TV advertising from CBS’s-owned TV owned stations and its affiliates. One estimate says from all ad revenues alone it can total $204 million.

"60 Minutes" is not only the highest-rated TV news show, but the third-highest-viewed non-sports show on all of television after CBS’s “Tracker” and CBS’s “Marshals.”

Why then rip up this show, when there are so many other money-losing or areas suffering financially that need more attention? (Hello, cable networks).

We can only focus on the facts.

 

Commentary

FAST Growth Among Younger Audiences - How Far Can It Go?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, June 2, 2026

The view of FAST channels can be a complicated one when considering the full breadth of streaming and linear TV programming out there.

Can we drill down into all those overlapping behavioral and viewing trends -- among all the different platforms? It can be a daunting task.

Proponents of the growth of free, ad-supported streaming television (FAST) channels now tout all types of programming available for free on those platforms.

The list includes movies, library TV shows, sports and non-scripted entertainment. But at the core comes cost.

The VAB analysis of an MRI Simmons study shows that 61% of FAST viewers are "cord cutters" or "cord nevers."

What that means is that those consumers still like and want the ease of the live, cable TV experience -- just without the cost.

FAST continues to climb in advertising revenue -- estimated to hit around $5 billion by 2028, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence/Kagan.

The desire appears to be for the viewers to have a lot of content available -- without the concern that a collection of streaming platforms will raise its monthly prices every year. FAST is nice to have in the back pocket for the average TV viewer/consumer.

Still, it would be interesting to gain a more in-depth understanding of what those 35% of “cord cutters” watch -- when they are not watching FAST channels.

For starters, do they have one single premium "must-have" service, like Netflix? Or perhaps two (Netflix and Prime Video)? Or three?

Insights would also be gained by examining overlapping viewing data with those premium services. Perhaps also how much those heavy FAST watchers and "cord shavers" actually pay for their smaller group of streaming platforms.

One key programming element may be the growth of video podcasts, and "creator"-generated content.

Among FAST viewers, younger audiences are increasingly consuming content. Those consumers may be seeing FAST as a dual connection with another growing platform -- YouTube.

By the way, isn’t that also a free, ad-supported service?

 

Commentary

Roku Vs. Netflix: Brand Video Home-Screen Battle?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 8 hours ago

One analyst calls the new Roku home screen "one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in entertainment.”

Is that a bit of an overblown characterization?

With Roku’s now 100 million active streaming households on its streaming distribution platform -- incorporated into smart TV sets, via set-top devices and streaming sticks -- there are some strong arguments for upgrading its home screen. It is now live for about 20% of its users.

Roku is now amping up the page for users -- specifically speeding up the time it takes to find movies and TV shows with new areas such as “Top Picks for You,” “Your Daily Scoop” and “Destinations.”

In addition, users can get billions of possible home-screen combinations to make it a more personalized experience, and the layout can shift throughout the day in terms of where the TV set resides -- for example, in a child’s play area or an adult bedroom.

Sean Diffley, media analyst for Morgan Stanley, says it “should help drive further engagement and monetization potential supporting sustained solid double-digit revenue growth.”

For advertisers, Diffley says there is “a biddable in-tile ad unit for more personalized action which can create better engagement and monetization.”

He equates this move with that of Netflix's home landing page, which he called “the most valuable piece of real estate in digital media and entertainment.”

Analysts believe that, in particular, it will help boost the Roku Channel -- which drives much of its advertising business.

So, this is Roku looking to step up -- giving brands (and viewers) more punch.

But is it also because of competition -- for a similar space on other popular streaming platforms? We are talking about Netflix, in particular.

Netflix's advertising revenues are projected to hit $3 billion this year. Industry estimates for Roku’s 2026 advertising revenues are around $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion. Both companies have seen double-digit percentage growth, with much coming from more budget shifts from linear TV into digital.

This puts a clear focus for brands to consider going forward --- as part of their overall media budget spent on the platform.

With rising fractionalization of premium video -- and media in general -- they want to hone in on the first media screens consumers see while they are navigating around the streaming ecosystem.

For brands, the essence is not just to secure an “A” position in a traditional TV network commercial pod, but offering even bigger, major sponsorship-like positioning for major awareness -- with, of course, key new engagement possibilities.

With Netflix also recently also upgrading its home landing page as well to make navigation easier, we wonder where this all will go next.

 

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.