The following article is based on national ad spend. Local-direct is the most controllable and highest in station revenue streams. Transactional dollars are not as stable nor commissionable to local sales teams. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

State-Level Ad Spend Predicts Economic Downturn

• by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

The general economy historically has been seen as a leading indicator for U.S. ad spending, but a new, first-of-its-kind analysis suggests it may be the other way around, at least in terms of the impact of local ad-spending trends on state-level economies. And it doesn't bode well for foreseeable quarters.

The analysis, conducted by a new econometric modeling team at ad spending tracker Guideline, indicates that recent cuts in local ad spending have accurately predicted declining GDP in about a third of U.S. states in the second half of this year, and based on continuing local ad-spending trends, the Guideline team predicts that will rise to about half of U.S. states in the next quarter or so.

"In the next three-ish months, what we're seeing in our model today, is that about half the state in the U.S. will be in negative territory from a GDP perspective," explains Sean Wright, who recently joined Guideline as Chief Insights and Analytics Officer, after years of market intelligence and NBCUniversal, and at Anheuser-Busch before that.

"Does that necessarily equate to a recession? Not necessarily, depending on those states' contribution to the overall GDP," he said during a briefing taking me through the new Guideline model, "but our data is pointing to a material weakening in the ad market, because economically, a lot of states are starting to struggle."

Wright's model is interesting to me for several reasons, including the fact that I've covered the correlation between the U.S. ad economy and the general economy for nearly half a century, going back to the early days when the late McCann-Erickson forecaster Bob Coen made his annual and semi-annual forecasts.

Back then, Coen always included a section showing a strong correlation between ad spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy, but he never determined which was the leading and which was the lagging indicator.

And while ad spending historically lagged going into and coming out of U.S. economic recessions on a national level, Guideline's Wright says that likely is because it's easier for big national brands to move budgets around depending on what categories they're in, and the effects tend to be more lagging on a national level.

But on a local/state-level, impacting many small- and medium-size advertisers, economic volatility tends to have more immediacy, and the new analysis proves it.

"It's more of a bellwether for a weakening economy," Wright said, estimating that shifts in local ad spending are about a 1.5 times more predictive indicator of the economy than national ad spending has historically been.

While a few states appear to be outliers that are less predictable -- New Jersey, Wyoming and Washington, for example -- and at least one state (Hawaii) is showing inexplicable growth, Wright said the data points to an overall downturn in state-level economies that the ad industry should consider in near-term media planning and buying.

"As an agency or a publisher, I'd want to get out ahead of this," Wright cautioned, suggesting that media sales organizations might want to do what they can to pre-book advance ad sales, while agencies might want to hedge on greater flexibility until the economic outlook becomes more stable.

In terms of national ad commitments, national TV upfront advertising buys historically are firm for the fourth quarter, are about 25% cancelable for the first, and 50% cancelable for the second and third quarters of each year.

Wright said he plans to update the analysis over time and is beginning to look at correlating other forms of economic data to make Guideline's core ad spending data more meaningful and actionable to different stakeholders, including economists, as well as advertisers, agencies and the media.

Stay tuned.

 

From Demographics to Depth: Why Audience Research Must Go Beyond Personas

• by Christine Perkett , Yesterday

For decades, marketers have relied on tidy labels to define their audiences: “decision-makers in healthcare IT,” “millennial finance professionals,” or “C-suite leaders in cybersecurity,” for example. These descriptors may look neat on a persona slide, but they don’t reveal what matters most: how people think, what motivates them, what they aspire to, or what holds them back.

The risk of relying on demographics is clear. Campaigns are built on assumptions, and in today’s attention economy, assumptions don’t suffice. People don’t engage simply because a message matches their job title or age bracket. They engage when a message resonates; when it reflects their pressures, their ambitions, and their self-perception. That’s the difference between superficial engagement (even a negative comment counts as “engaged”) and true resonance that inspires action.

So how do marketers move beyond assumptions? Modern audience research offers a path. Today’s tools enable us to extract signals from across various digital ecosystems, including LinkedIn, Reddit and niche Slack groups, and translate them into insights that explain not only who an audience is, but also why they behave the way they do.

Artificial intelligence accelerates this process by scanning millions of data points to detect patterns no team could catch on its own. Frustrations that surface before they go mainstream, aspirations tucked into offhand comments, shifts in tone that signal evolving attitudes: all of these become visible when AI is applied at scale.

But data alone isn’t enough. Numbers need context. That’s where human interpretation takes over. Marketers should analyze patterns and translate them through a lens of psychology, values, and decision dynamics.

For example, understanding that a cybersecurity leader isn’t just thinking about stopping breaches, but is striving for recognition as a strategic partner to customers. A nonprofit leader isn’t only chasing donations, but wants to educate and become an authoritative innovator, making systemic change. Those nuances are what transform messaging from transactional to resonant.

This kind of research also uncovers how people think, not just what they say. Do they respond best to rational proof points or to emotional storytelling? Do they lean toward risk-taking or caution? Which archetypes —challenger, guide, protector — surface most often in their conversations? The answers to these questions reshape how marketers frame value, credibility, and trust.

Practical tools can make this work more accessible. Social listening platforms can uncover shifts in sentiment; AI-powered audience insight platforms highlight affinities and overlaps; community analytics tools track what’s happening in niche forums and Slack groups; and conversational intelligence platforms help surface insights from sales calls or support transcripts. Each has a role to play, but none should replace human judgment. Technology can uncover signals, but marketers must interpret them with empathy and context.

The outcome is simple but powerful: resonance. When narratives reflect truths that audiences already recognize in themselves, they cut through the noise more quickly and with greater clarity. Brands stop talking at people and start speaking with them. And when marketers take the time to listen, adapt, and reflect those truths, they don’t just earn engagement; they influence decisions.

 

Commentary

How CTV Is Making Ads More Interactive - And More Effective

• by Danyelle Horrillo , October 1, 2025

Connected TV (CTV) continues to push the boundaries of innovation, and honestly, are we even surprised? Whether consumers are deep into the latest season of “Dexter,” catching up on “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” or just looping their favorite comfort show in the background, they’re part of the many households that subscribe to multiple streaming services. With content more fragmented than ever, streaming has become the default, and we’re all in.

CTV and streaming platforms are constantly reinventing the ad experience to keep viewers engaged, especially during ad breaks. Traditional targeting and contextual relevance are no longer enough. Publishers are stepping up with creative, tech-forward solutions that make ads feel less like interruptions and more like experiences that consumers want to watch.

What’s New in CTV Ad Innovation?

QR codes make a comeback. Watching TV is now a full-on multiscreen experience. Chances are, the target viewer’s phone is always within arm’s reach, and that’s the case when they're tuned into their favorite programming. Advertisers know this and craft experiences for that constant connection. Innovid’s recent study shares that over 30% of viewers say they regularly scan QR codes while watching TV or during commercials.

Publishers are leaning into this behavior with interactive overlays, mini-games, and auto-fill sign-up pages, all designed for seamless engagement without the need to leave the couch. These units are pure gold for direct attribution, customer-initiated response, and first-party data collection.

Shoppable ads turn screens into storefronts. Think Home Shopping Network (aging myself here), but cooler. Shoppable ads let viewers scan codes for instant product access, push info directly to their phones, or sign up for offers -- all from the comfort of their living room. It’s a frictionless path from interest to action, and it’s gaining serious traction.

Pause-screen takeovers. Ever hit pause and walk away? Publishers are taking advantage of viewer pause breaks and turning them into branding opportunities with full-screen overlays or subtle messaging. It’s a clever way to boost awareness and get face time with viewers -- particularly those in households where pausing means someone’s asking a question (guilty).

In-show product placement goes digital. Virtual product placement is here, and it’s changing the game. Platforms like Amazon, Peacock, and Mirriad now offer the ability to digitally insert branded products into content after production. These ad placements blend seamlessly into the narrative, creating countless opportunities for organic brand moments that feel native to the viewing experience.

The Future Is (Still) Streaming

As more consumers shift their viewing habits toward streaming platforms, publishers are rapidly evolving their ad strategies to meet audiences where they are with smarter, more interactive formats that go beyond traditional awareness. What was once considered a space for upper-funnel branding has now transformed into a dynamic, performance-driven environment where advertisers and brands can drive real, measurable conversions.

Innovations like shoppable ads, QR code overlays, and pause-screen takeovers are turning passive viewership into active engagement, creating seamless pathways to direct action. The pace of change in the CTV space is accelerating, and the next wave of innovation—powered by AI, personalization, and cross-device integration—is already underway.

 

Assembly: It's The Political Ad Economy, Stupid

• by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

In case you missed Assembly Director of Political Strategy Tyler Goldberg’s interview at MediaPost’s recent Planning & Buying Summit, you can see it below, but I wanted to draw your attention to a new updated political ad spending forecast he announced – $10.1 billion for the 2025-26 US. election cycle – as well as a new Assembly political tracking report he teased.

The first edition of the new “Election Outlook Report” is being released today and you can find it here.

And based on a conversation I had with Goldberg, he convinced me that it’s the first-of-its-kind to be published by a general market agency – not a political specialist unit – or an outside research supplier.

Goldberg -- who arguably has become Madison Avenue’s authority on political ad spending as well as message and issues targeting -- says the main reason Assembly is doing it isn’t just for its or parent Stagwell’s political advertising accounts, but for all of the media services agency’s accounts, which are impacted to at least some degree by the impact of increasingly big, continuous political advertising cycles that tend to tighten advertising inventory in key markets, and drive ad prices up too.

“We noticed when we started the political practice here about five years ago that it wasn’t just an underutilized area, but it had never been done before. There had never been a brand-focused agency that had an in-house political practice. We quickly realized that our commercial clients could also benefit from this very niche expertise.”

That insight led to Assembly’s launch of Advocacy Consulting Technology, or ACT, which is the umbrella organization covering all of the tools Assembly has built, as well as the new tracking report.

The political team and its new reporting basically buckets the effects of political advertising on general market advertisers in two ways.

The first part is how it affects inventory and pricing in political advertising markets for general market advertisers.

That’s something Assembly began sharing with clients when it published a benchmark report in 2022 including a new metric it dubbed Political Intensity Scores.

“The idea was that not only does this political spending affect your advertising strategy from a buying standpoint, but it affected the very mindset of the consumers brands are trying to reach.

Back in 2022, it was mainly about the impact of political campaigns talking about the economy and inflation, which had an effect on the marketplace psyche of consumers.

“We found that had a tangible effect on their spending habits, especially on Republican voters who were pulling back on discretionary spending.

In terms of the next political cycle, Goldberg predicts the skew will be inverted, with Democrats more prone to cutting back on discretionary spending due to political messaging about the economy.

Other likely political messaging themes could impact consumer sentiment about health care, energy, and other categories, he predicts.

While Assembly's new tracking report differentiates it from other full-service and major independent media agencies, Goldberg says it is not intended to compete with syndicated sources like AdImpact's reports, but it does offer a slightly different perspective by focusing 100% on demand-side implications for general market advertisers.

 

Our Media Classification Does Not Fit The Containers of the Past

• by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, 7 hours ago

Most humans crave organization and structure, although some humans (many of the teenager variety) seem to thrive on chaos. But most humans like to label and box things for ease of reference or use. It helps identify who we are, or who we want to connect with. In entertainment, for instance, the genre of a movie or series often determines whether we hit play, based on previous experiences with a director, cast member, or a favored streaming service.

In the integrated marketing world, we label everyone and everything, too. We segment the industry into clients, agencies, vendors, and platforms. We further subdivide by function: search, production, copywriting, media planning, analytics. The list is endless.

This structure makes it easier to assign responsibilities and define expertise. But as the media landscape grows ever more fragmented and consumer behaviors evolve, I find myself increasingly questioning the usefulness of its classifications. I was reminded of that when I saw the stats below, as shared by eMarketer:

advertisement

advertisement

The labels that eMarketer uses are understood, but are they right or helpful? For instance: why is YouTube separated from free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST)? What's the difference between radio and digital audio?

I frequently watch YouTube content on my living room television, just as I would any traditional broadcast channel or streaming content. But according to this taxonomy, YouTube is neither “traditional TV” nor “FAST.” Meanwhile, I call it “watching TV.”

Similarly, I listen to my local PBS station almost exclusively via digital channels: apps on my smart speakers, streaming on my phone, or through my car’s Bluetooth system. I consider this “listening to the radio,” but using this chart’s labeling, it falls under “digital audio.”.

As an advertiser, how do you determine the most effective way to reach your audience? The industry labels, once helpful, now create confusion. As consumers migrate from one device or channel to another, the old labels are no longer useful for strategic planning. For example, a podcast can be experienced live, streamed later, or watched as a video clip on social media. Where does it fit in our labeling structure -- and does the label actually matter to the consumer?

Some marketers analyze “time spent” versus “budget spent” on touchpoints to determine if they are allocating sufficient resources to each. However, the labels for these touchpoints are no longer effective, as they overlap and become increasingly ambiguous.

The same challenges apply when using attribution models or marketing mix modeling, where outcomes are reported according to similar, standardized labels. But if those labels do not take into consideration the way consumers actually interact with content and advertising, there is real risk of making misguided decisions about where to spend your resources.

I recommend that brands and organizations create their own definitions of what is and isn’t included in their touchpoint classification, rather than relying on industry labels, which may be irrelevant or incomplete. Create labels that reflect your specific brand objectives, your unique consumer journey, and the true behaviors of your target audience. In doing so, you ensure that strategies are rooted in your own business’s reality, not in a structure that does not fit.

And oh, yes, I paraphrased Rishad Tobaccowala’s speech title (“The Future Does Not Fit In The Containers Of The Past”) for the headline of this article. I could do worse than use his wisdom (and magic).

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

Commentary

Roughing Up the Media: Trust Has Fallen to An All-Time Low

• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, Yesterday

Trust in media has sunk to a new low of 28%, down from 31% last year and 40% five years ago, Gallup reports. 

This is the first time faith in the accuracy and fairness of newspapers, television and radio has sunk to less than 30%. 

At the same time, 36% of readers have little confidence and 34% none at all 

Gallup began measuring confidence in media in the 1970s, when the numbers varied between 68% and 72%. Trust fell to 44% in 2004 but rose to 45% in 2018.

Feelings vary by both age and political preference.

Republican trust, which has not risen above 21% since 2015, has dropped to 8% for the first time.

Trust by independents hit a historical low of 27% last year and has continued at that level. 

For Democrats, the narrowest of majorities (51%) now express trust in the media, which is a repeat of the low previously seen in 2016.

From 2023 to 2025, 43% of persons 65 and older trust the media. 

Among Republicans, 12% of those age 18-29 have a great deal or a fair amount of trust, as do 6% of those in the 30-49 cohort, 8% in the 50-64 demographic and 17% of those 65+. 

Trust is also shared by 29% of Independents in the 18-29 age range, 24% of those who are 30-49, 23% of those in the 50-64 category and 42% of those aged 65+.

Democrats appear to be the most trusting of the media, with the combined 2023-25 data showing 38% of 18-29 year-old readers, 42% age 30-49, 59% of those in the 50-64 grouping and 69% of those aged 65 and older.

 

Where Are the New Ideas for Live Non-Sports Shows?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

If late-night broadcast TV comedy shows go away, what could pick up the slack -- in terms of viewership and brand advertising buying that content?

Other than the announcement that CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is ending next year because of what parent Paramount Skydance said about financial losses at the show, right now we don’t have much insight into other future late-night shows on broadcast TV.

CBS has not disclosed replacement plans for the “The Late Show” -- yet.

This puts some attention on NBC’s “Tonight with Jimmy Fallon” and ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” -- with the likely guess that these shows could be in a similar financial situation. And possibly take a similar path.

Kimmel was suspended for a week following remarks in a monologue about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

But unlike what happened with Colbert, Kimmel returned to his spot on the schedule. Still, this doesn’t mean ABC would not -- perhaps in a few weeks -- announce that it would be pulling the plug anyway.

Financial issues aside for these programs, the positive is that from an advertising perspective, networks get premium pricing for brands due to shows’ live or live-to-tape nature.

In addition, these shows also skew to a highly desired, but hard-to-get younger audience -- something young-focused advertisers desire.

So what replaces these shows -- either on the schedule, or when it comes to boosting live TV programming in other spots on the schedule?

Naturally, much attention goes to sports. But increasingly, networks are considering somewhat lower-interest sports programming than the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball variety.

For example, soon after the announced cancellation of “The Late Show,” Paramount Skydance announced a long-term $7.7 billion media rights deal for programmer UFC. 

Even modest-sized TV broadcast networks continue to add what many might assume are fringe sports programs. Adding to its list of college-based and other sports, The CW just announced a deal with the Professional Bowlers Association.

So what else? Anything non-sports related -- like those late-night shows? 

News content can be live and highly rated. Fox News Channel and other cable TV network networks would attest to that. 

What about entertainment award shows? CBS, for the first time, recently aired “The 2025 MTV Video Music Awards” (along with MTV) -- a show that had been airing on MTV exclusively or with other sister Paramount cable TV networks.

Looking at other non-sports content, networks have done live season finales of shows like “The Voice” and “American Idol.” In recent years, networks also aired live onstage Broadway shows.

But all this doesn’t currently seem to provide enough live, linear advertising inventory for those brands that would be willing to step up and pay for the premium content.

Even then, some of this live content has moved to streaming platforms.

So, are broadcasters looking for live non-sports TV content out of ideas? 

YouTube-style podcasts, anyone?

Commentary Good News/Bad News on Where Americans Are Getting Their News

 Is local news important to viewers these days? Another question might be: Where else may consumers get their news? Since local news has almost always been a great place for local businesses to advertise there....are things and times changing as a revenue source for local TV stations? Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Commentary

Good News/Bad News on Where Americans Are Getting Their News

• by Joe Mandese , 5 hours ago

At a time when many Americans no longer read newspapers, the percentage citing social-media apps as their regular source of news has been growing, according to new data from the Pew Research Center.

In fact, X has the greatest percentage of users regularly getting their news there -- 57% -- although that is down slightly from a high of 59%.

TikTok ranks No. 2 in terms of share of users regularly consuming news there -- 55% -- up from just 22% when Pew first began benchmarking the phenomenon five years ago.

Facebook and Truth Social are the only other two social apps in which more than half of their users report getting their news regularly there.

I call the increasing percentages of Americans using social media for news "bad news," because the notion and nature of what constitutes "news" may or may not be actual news. The role of algorithms, declining moderation, and bogus misinformation and disinformation raises big questions about what those users actually perceive to be news.

The Pew study doesn't get into that and, from what I can tell, the responses to its surveys are self-reported in terms of the definition of news.

If Pew really wanted to do a public service, it would drill into what Americans perceive as news on these and other platforms, because some of the research I've seen from other organizations -- principally IPSOS -- suggest it may not always be bona fide, objective, fact-based news reporting that they perceive as news.

Here's another reason local-direct ad revenue is so important to TV stations these days! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

 

IAB: Media Buyer Outlook Dives from Start of Year

• by Laurie Sullivan , 4 hours ago

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) released an update to its 2025 media spend outlook today — estimating buyers will spend less on advertising in the U.S. and focus more broadly on near-term performance. It also highlights many of the challenges around how media buyers are trying to adjust to changes in consumer behavior.

The study finds media buyers surveyed plan to spend 1.6 percentage points less than what they expected at the start of 2025 -- dropping from 7.3% anticipated growth in January to 5.7% currently.

The shifts in the second half of 2025 show allocated budget changes, and a heightened focus on near-term performance. Some 91% of buyers in the study expressed concern over the economic effects of tariffs, particularly in the areas of automotive, retail, and consumer electronics. 

These categories — which rely heavily on imported products and parts — are pressured to balance rising costs with demands to perform. Between 62% and 69% of buyers expect these industries to be hit hardest, and many have adjusted their spending strategies. 

Media buyers surveyed in February cited “extreme” concerns, but today are “somewhat” concerned, mainly because they have greater clarity on the most affected industries. Many are adjusting plans by shifting toward bottom-funnel outcomes. As a result of tariffs, only 23% are operating “business as usual.”

The updated forecast in the 2025 Outlook Study September Update: A Snapshot into Ad Spend, Opportunities, and Strategies for Growth is based on insights from more than 200 U.S. ad buyers across agencies and brands. The study notes that the change reflects how geopolitical forces are reshaping media buying.

Data shows an increased focus on achieving performance, and 64% of survey participants cite acquiring new customers as their top goal. They also cite an increased urgency to drive repeat purchases — up 8 percentage points vs. 2024, and 5 percentage points since January’s projection.

Key digital channels — social media, retail media and connected TV (CTV) — are where buyers have turned to reach their goals. These channels are still expected to post double-digit growth.

The IAB data shows the forecasts for social media rising 14.3%, with retail media up 13.2% and connected TV (CTV) at 11.4%.

Linear TV is now expected to decline by 14.4% — a steeper drop than the 12.7% decline the IAB had projected in January, according to the update.

Other traditional media are forecast to decline by 3.4% — more than twice the 1.5% decline projected earlier this year.

In addition to tariff concerns, proving incrementality and cross-channel measurement are challenges, as buyers under economic pressure need to assure that every advertising dollar is working in today’s fragmented measurement landscape.

Some 41% of media buyers surveyed cited macroeconomic headwinds and uncertainty as challenges, while 40% were challenged by adapting and evolving consumer behavior driven by AI and social-first search; 36% by demonstrating incrementality of media investments; 36% by executing cross-channel measurement; 32% by understanding generative AI; 30% by media inflation; 27% by managing reach and frequency; 21% by having budgets to increase emerging channel buys; 21% by mitigating ad fraud; and 20% by maintaining budgets to increase CTV and OTT spend.

 

'Kimmel' Soars To 6.3M Viewers, Tripling Show's Average

• by Wayne Friedman , Yesterday

Viewership of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” in his return show on Tuesday rocketed up three-and-a-half times over the show’s recent average to 6.26 million average minute viewers, according to Nielsen.

These results came even as two major TV station groups -- Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Inc. -- pre-empted the show for their collective 70 ABC affiliates' TV stations. Those stations amount to 23% of U.S. TV households.

Nielsen's results did not include streaming, according to the ABC Television Network.

Before Kimmel’s last Monday show a week ago -- when he commented about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk -- the show was averaging 1.8 million viewers, according to Nielsen.

Views of Kimmel’s return show on YouTube and social-media platforms soared to 26 million, according to ABC. On YouTube’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” site itself, the monologue got 15.7 million views as of late Wednesday.

Previously, his highest YouTube result was in 2017, when Kimmel talked about the birth of his son and how the family was dealing with his son's heart disease, drawing 14 million views.

On Wednesday, September 24 -- the day after Kimmel’s return -- Nexstar Media Group said in a statement: “Nexstar is continuing to evaluate the status of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on our ABC-affiliated local television stations, and the show will be preempted while we do so. We are engaged in productive discussions with executives at The Walt Disney Company, with a focus on ensuring the program reflects and respects the diverse interests of the communities we serve.”

 

Commentary

Beyond Kimmel for TV Station Owners: What's Next?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, September 22, 2025

Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Inc. are in a bind -- operating declining over-the-air TV businesses and with the Trump Administration now watching every move they make. Or everything they say.

Even before all this, TV station groups have been pursuing other businesses for growth: Budding national news or locally sourced digital TV networks, more sports programming, and new ad-sales efforts adding growing local/regional streaming business to over-the-air local TV stations' inventory.

But the easiest and biggest way to grow might be just buying up more over-the-air stations to gain competitive control of a marketplace that has been shrinking.

For example, local TV is now only 6% of total U.S. media spend as of June 2025 -- down from 13% in 2017, according to Guideline.

Currently, Federal Communications Commission regulations state that TV station ownership is capped at 39% of all U.S. TV households -- something that has been in place for over 20 years. Both Nexstar and Sinclair -- two of the biggest station groups in the U.S. -- have been virtually at this limit for years.

The Trump Administration has been leaning toward dropping this restriction. But what comes next?

At the same time, President Trump now says he wants to pull broadcast licenses from TV stations that are critical of him. Putting it plainly, this would be a virtual open attack on the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

So what do these TV station groups do? They are reading the room -- and have become ultra-sensitive. They found a critical seam (thanks to social media) in “Jimmy Kimmel Live” when it came to Kimmel's monologue.

Like it or not, this put Nexstar and Sinclair in good favor with Trump’s belief on how to handle future broadcast licenses.

Many analysts believe, from all this, that free speech is on the chopping block.

An important question is what happens when the next over-the-air TV comedian, news commentator or unscripted TV host goes off this way -- for something they say as an opinion, inadvertently, or as part of a comedy routine?

Local and regional advertisers -- those supporting over-the-air TV -- will want to know as well.

Will Trump pull broadcast licenses, file more lawsuits, or ask for more million-dollar settlements?

Good luck making free speech less free -- when your business, at its core, is all about speaking.

Shut Down ABC Network, Shift to Streaming?

 
Here's something that might feel a bit scary if you're working for ABC TV. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Shut Down ABC Network, Shift to Streaming?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

Let’s make it simple.

How about just shutting down a big TV network -- and shifting everything to streaming?

Sounds crazy. But Needham & Company recommends Walt Disney just accelerate where the world seems to be going.

Not a sale of ABC. Not a merger. Not a spinoff. Just over and out.

This isn’t just about declines in finances for the broadcast business, but now adding in an environment that seems to aggressively attack content -- heightened recently by freedom-of-speech issues and the suspension and return of ABC late-night comedian/host Jimmy Kimmel.

Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened to take action after Kimmel's remarks with regard to conservative activist Charlie Kirk -- with threats to ABC TV stations and ABC affiliates' broadcast licenses.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said last week on a conservative political podcast.

That puts nervous major TV station groups on high alert -- closely monitoring the content from TV networks feeding their affiliated TV stations.

Sinclair Inc. immediately threatened to pre-empt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” unless he made an apology as well as a contribution with a donation to the Kirk conservative organization “Turning Point USA.

After Disney announced that Kimmel would return to the airwaves this week, Sinclair reiterated its decision to pre-empt “Kimmel” -- as did another big TV station group, Nexstar Media Group.

Laura Martin, media analyst of Needham & Company, believes the time is now to make a dramatic change -- to abandon the network and shift everything to streaming.

“Given Disney’s negative share price performance based on recent FCC comments, we argue that Disney should shut down (not sell) ABC,” Martin wrote.

The rub, of course, is that Disney’s legacy TV business -- although steadily declining -- is still currently profitable and will be for the near term.

So why do it? Disney’s stock price, of course. The hard-pressed entertainment stock could benefit in another direction, seeing sharp gains.

“Together, these would add $20 billion -- 10% -- of incremental value to Disney shareholders,” says Martin.

Disney would also benefit by writing off about $10 billion to $11 billion of its $204 billion market value.

So how can Disney -- or anyone with the broadcast network -- transition everything in one big, dramatic move to streaming?

That would seemingly require seismic business changes and a massive marketing campaign to communicate with consumers.

That said, Disney is a master of this kind of consumer marketing.

Still, it won’t be as simple as ABC.

abc 

tv

Commentary Another Sales Hire Probably Isn't the Answer

 

Commentary

Another Sales Hire Probably Isn't the Answer

• by Michael Baer , Yesterday

When a B2B company -- especially an early-stage one -- hits a sales plateau, the knee-jerk instinct is usually the same: "We need to bring in another salesperson.”

Sure, there are times when a new sales hire can make a big difference. But more often than not, adding a salesperson only masks bigger issues. If the engine isn’t working, adding another driver won’t help -- and can even make things worse.

Why? What most of these companies are really experiencing is caused by faulty fundamentals and a wobbly foundation to sell from. And when you throw another rep at the problem, instead of addressing these deeper issues, you can exacerbate the problem.

Why Hiring More Reps Fails to Get to the Root of the Issue

Before hiring, first remember: Onboarding a new sales rep often costs six figures, and it can take up to a year for them to reach full productivity. So before assuming “more people selling” will solve the problem, it’s worth determining if the real issue is lack of outreach activity. If your message, systems, or demand engine are weak, no amount of headcount will fix it.

nt

Hiring more salespeople usually masks these systemic issues, leading companies to believe they’re doing something when they’re actually just delaying the real work. Here's why this approach so often misses the mark:

• It amplifies noise, not clarity. When your value proposition is vague, generic, and doesn’t resonate or differentiate, spreading it more widely only amplifies the confusion and dilutes your brand.

• It undervalues customer understanding. If your team hasn’t defined their ideal customer profile, segmented the market, and mapped the buyer’s journey, even “rock star” new salespeople will be firing blind at customers’ needs. 

• It rewards activity over strategy. Without a strategic foundation or cohesive go-to-market motion, all that new activity is unlikely to gain momentum.

• It ignores the real conversion challenge. As I’ve written here before, most companies have a bigger conversion problem than a lead-gen problem. Hiring another rep won’t fix the lack of a coordinated nurture strategy.

What to Do Instead

Before defaulting to another sales hire to address your need for growth, start by answering the tougher, more strategic questions.

Here’s what that work looks like:

Invest in customer insight. Get clear on who your best customers are, what triggers their buying decisions, what frictions they experience, and what content or conversations unlock progress. Map the full journey -- from awareness to decision -- and align your efforts accordingly.

Sharpen your message. Make sure your positioning speaks directly to your ideal buyer’s pain points, goals, and decision-making criteria. It should be differentiated, specific, and tied to outcomes, not features or attributes.

Build a real demand engine. Think beyond sales-led outreach. Create content and campaigns that educate, generate interest, and build trust over time. Your marketing should support long-cycle buyers, not just chase quick wins.

Focus on conversion systems, not just lead volume. Marketing and sales should operate in tandem to track and manage how existing leads move through the funnel, developing nurture programs, email sequences and integrated efforts.

Enable the team you have. Focus on giving the current team tools to help them succeed. That includes sales enablement tools like FAQs, objection-handling frameworks, testimonials, case studies, and beyond. These go beyond nice-to-haves -- they’re what modern selling relies on.

Final Thought

Real growth comes when you build the right conditions for sales to succeed: clear positioning, focused targeting, aligned content, and a system that builds trust over time. Only then will adding a sales rep actually have the results you’re looking for.

Commentary Media Fragmentation Is Hollywood's -- And Every Marketer's -- Problem

 

Commentary

Media Fragmentation Is Hollywood's -- And Every Marketer's -- Problem

• by Jim Caruso , 2 hours ago

The New York Times recently reported that Hollywood’s summer box office slumped to its lowest point since 1981. One factor: media fragmentation. Studios can no longer reach mass audiences with ads the way they once did.

So who should they be targeting? Our data shows Gen Z combines three traits -- cross-category breadth, music-driven engagement, and merchandise readiness -- making them the audience every studio and marketer must understand to fuel the next breakout franchise.

No Single TV Path Reaches Gen Z

Gen Z’s media habits are fractured. Deloitte’s 2025 Digital Media Trends reports that 23% of Gen Z cable subscribers plan to cancel within 12 months, reflecting their shift to SVOD:  social video, gaming, and audio.

Our data confirms TV captures just 14.0% of this cohort’s attention. Within TV, no network exceeds 1.2% (Fox leads at 1.15%), no genre tops 3% (comedy at 2.95%), and even streaming giants remain single-digit: Netflix 8.75%, Prime Video 7.70%, Paramount+ 6.30%.

Translation: A single TV buy won’t scale. You need packaging across platforms, genres, and networks.

Interests Are Broad and Fragmented

Even interests show fragmentation. Music, the top category, holds just 11.3% of Gen Z’s share. The top three (music 11.3%, sports 9.3%, arts & entertainment 8.4%) reach only ~29%; the top five total ~44%. To cross 50%, you need at least eight interest lanes.

Mass breakthrough is rare. Success comes from bundling three to five adjacent clusters aligned with the title, then layering others for incremental reach. This fragmentation doesn’t just shape what Gen Z cares about -- it also determines how and where they consume content.

Multiplatform Consumption

No single channel surpasses 20%. Gen Z attention divides across: websites 16.1%, YouTube 15.5%, TV 14.0%, Music 12.2%, Podcasts 10.4%.

Reaching even 57.8% requires websites + YouTube + TV + Music. Add podcasts, and you hit 68.2%. Planning must mirror reality: a four to five channel baseline, plus layered interest clusters.

Influence Is Atomized

Creators drive conversation, but even stars are small-scale: Taylor Swift 5.10%, LeBron James 4.56%. Median influencer share sits below 0.01%—0.009% for singers, 0.0068% for hip hop, 0.0057% for basketball. Only a tiny fraction break 1%.

There’s no single cultural icon for Gen Z. Influence is distributed across micro-communities, making micro-influencers and niche voices more powerful than celebrities. Fragmentation is evident not only in channels but also in influence, which is why the lessons for Hollywood apply equally to marketers.

The Lesson

Mass audiences still exist -- but they’re scattered. For both Hollywood and marketers, the answer is orchestration: align channels, interests, and voices so each plays a role in discovery, consideration, and conversion.

For Hollywood, that means opening weekends can’t hinge on one blockbuster push -- they require orchestrated engagement before release and sustained lift after. For marketers, the same rule applies: In a fragmented world, only orchestration delivers scale.