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.

 

As Streaming Evolves, Will 'Usage' Pricing Become the Preferred Option?

• by Wayne Friedman , 10 hours ago

The streaming TV marketplace is transitioning as a mature media business where consumers are considering other variations on pricing and actions around their subscriptions.

According to a new broad-based survey of subscription businesses and consumer sentiment, 70% of respondents say they would be interested in “usage-based pricing,” according to Chargebee, a subscription business management company.

This would come from “pay-per view”-like options for streaming -- or paying per meal for food services subscription platforms.

In addition, 67% of participants surveyed said they are open to switching to “usage"-based or “hybrid” pricing for existing subscriptions. This could be a combination of flat fees and overage cr0edits, if offered.

These results also make sense as intere0st grows in in bundling subscription services, with 54% saying they continue to be interested in this, while another 13% prefer selecting their own individual subscriptions.

In addition, the research shows that 58% have opted to "pause" their subscriptions rather than "cancel."

“For more than half of subscribers, it’s the difference between a breakup and break,” say the authors of the study.

Nearly 80% of those surveyed said "flexibility" is very or extremely important. The most important reason to keep or cancel a subscription is cost -- at 67% -- followed closely by content at 62%.

Research was conducted with 1,454 consumers across the U.S and U.K., with respondents between the ages of 18 and 65. The results come as subscription prices have seen hikes of 15% to 25%.

 

Late Night TV Finance - Shift Everything to Streaming?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 8 hours ago

There has been much discussion around late-night talk shows moving to digital video connected TV (CTV) platforms in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension by Disney-ABC Television -- and now, his return. 

There are a number of reasons for the projection, including financially strapped operations, sinking viewership, and restrictive over-the-air federal rules.

On the surface, it seems like the easy answer to everything that’s wrong with traditional TV: go streaming.

We all know that financially, over-the-air platforms aren't up to snuff for real-time (or near real-time) late night live-looking shows.

CBS claimed that its decision to cancel the “Late Show With Stephen Colbert” was that it was losing money.

One should also assume that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on ABC, and the ”Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon” on NBC are at or near the same weak financial levels.

It's also important to consider that TV networks still get billions of dollars in carriage from over-the-air broadcast fees, via owned and affiliate TV stations being paid by cable TV operators, satellite pay TV, and virtual systems.

There is also value from having a regularly scheduled timeslots viewers are accustomed to -- the 11:30 p.m slot, for example.

Currently, late-night TV shows make around $40 million to $60 million in national TV advertising per year, according to estimates.

While streaming fees are growing, they are still not at the same level as broadcast -- even as the latter has been declining.

Politically and emotionally speaking, what is right for viewers now?

That's the question ABC Television Network and Walt Disney are now mulling over -- even as Kimmel has returned. (But for how long?)

Disney’s quick move to indefinitely suspend Kimmel was essentially asking for a timeout until they could figure out what to do.

Right now, from all reports, it doesn't seem they have a longer-term answer yet. Some people who attacked Kimmel have made an argument that he should just apologize and that by doing so he would save the jobs of hundreds of those staffers who work on his show.

We’ll see after tonight's show where that lands.

But we know it's not going to end here -- especially as the Trump Administration's aggressive stance continues to impact huge parts of the news media.

Long-term, Disney can keep the show on the air and let Kimmel keep using his satire as TV comedians have done for decades. That would put decision-making again in the hands of those major TV independent station groups that are affiliates of those networks.

What if Sinclair and Nexstar Broadcasting decide they are will forever preemt “Jimmy Kimmel Live?” Financially speaking, this would severely hurt ABC, since those two TV station groups represent over 60 TV stations, a huge piece -- 25% to 30% -- of ABC’s overall 230 plus affiliated TV stations.

They would force ABC to incur major losses and consider outright cancellation of the show.

So what if everything were to go to streaming? Does that mean everything is now protective of anything the president does -- that he won't be able to attack late night shows?

The president's long-standing behavior of filing lawsuits would be sure to continue.

And where would political satire go then? Traditionally, it would seem to go underground. But in this modern media age, perhaps other digital platforms will rise -- as long as the internet-delivered business does not morph into pseudo-nationalized government owned structures.

Is it crazy to think that Didn’t the Federal government just buy a 10% stake -- $8.9 billion -- in computer chip manufacturer/technology company Intel?

Could they do the same with media companies?

 

Commentary

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

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

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.

 

Commentary

Then They Came for The Late Night Hosts and I Did Not Speak Out...

• by Joe Mandese , Yesterday

In the scheme of Trump's ongoing war on America's media, the pressure to pull "Jimmy Kimmel Live" is not on the free press scale of ABC News' and CBS News' capitulations following his libel suits, but in a way, it's a more serious threat, because now we can't even laugh at ourselves for electing him president in the first place.

The irony is that it was a joke by a late-night host that jump-started Trump's presidency: Seth Meyers' 2011 monologue at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Although an equally hilarious takedown by then President Barack Obama didn't help.

You can watch both those roasts below, but if you ask me, it was Meyers' joke (annotated above) that was the exact moment Trump sold his soul to the devil and, well, we all know what happened after that.

Meanwhile, add ABC parent Disney and CBS parent Paramount Skydance to the growing list of media industry pariahs for canceling Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, respectively, and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump finally turns his revenge tour on NBC's Meyers, and maybe even Jimmy Fallon.

Needless to say, Fox doesn't have anyone worth laughing at, unless you include Fox News.

How AI-Powered Sales Playbooks Accelerate Revenue Growth

 

How AI-Powered Sales Playbooks Accelerate Revenue Growth

Alyssa Cruz, Luke Tipping

September 16, 2025

 

Share

Sales enablement has historically relied on static, one-size-fits-all content and tools to support sales teams. However, this approach often leaves sellers to manually gather and tailor generic guidance based on deal context, slowing their outreach and weakening their impact. The result? Lost opportunities, extended deal cycles and missed revenue targets.

As the demands on sales enablement expand, so does the expectation for measurable, bottom-line impact. Enablement leaders are under pressure to prove that their initiatives drive revenue growth, rather than just supporting sales activity. Recent Gartner research reveals that 65% of CSOs and senior sales executives now rank advanced analytics and AI among their top enablement priorities over the next two years. The message is clear: static playbooks are out, and dynamic, data-driven enablement is in.

The AI Advantage: Dynamic, Contextual Guidance at Scale

Artificial intelligence is transforming how sales enablement teams deliver value. Rather than simply distributing static content, AI enables a shift to dynamic, contextual guidance, delivered precisely within the seller’s workflow at the moment of need. This evolution turns enablement teams into orchestrators of seller success, using AI to surface the right plays, assets and insights at the right moments.

The key is modular content. By breaking high-frequency sales assets into reusable components, enablement teams can create a library of modules that are easily recombined for different buyers, industries and deal scenarios. These modules are mapped to buying signals (such as buyer engagement, deal stage or competitor involvement) and delivered in real time within the seller’s workflow. This reduces the manual burden on sellers and ensures every interaction is relevant and impactful.

Generative and agentic AI take this a step further by synthesizing data from across the business (including but not limited to deal history, buyer behavior and market trends) to generate insight-driven content combinations and next best actions for sellers to take. Sellers receive actionable recommendations and tailored materials, empowering them to respond quickly to buyer needs and objections. The result is a scalable, agile system that boosts productivity and improves win rates.

Measuring Impact and Securing Buy-In

Implementing AI-powered sales playbooks is not just a technology upgrade; it’s a strategic transformation that requires change management. Success depends on identifying and tracking the seller behaviors that correlate with improved pipeline health. Enablement teams should focus on three to five high-value actions, such as engaging with AI-surfaced modules or using prescribed objection-handling scripts, and ensure these are measured consistently.

Launching focused pilot programs with clear KPIs, including conversion rates, deal velocity and average deal size, provides the data needed to quantify impact. Comparing pilot results to a control group provides clear proof points that support a strong case for executive buy-in and further investment. Continuous improvement is essential: training sellers on triggers, monitoring analytics to identify underperforming modules, and refining the system to keep pace with market changes.

Automated, signal-driven playbooks deliver contextually relevant guidance at the point of need, accelerating seller productivity and creating quick wins that fuel momentum for broader AI adoption.

The Future of Sales Enablement Is Intelligent

The move to AI-powered, dynamic sales playbooks marks a pivotal shift for sales enablement. By leveraging modular content, real-time triggers and advanced analytics, enablement leaders can provide scalable, personalized support that directly impacts revenue. As organizations embrace this transformation, sales enablement will evolve from a supporting function to a strategic growth driver, proving that the future of sales is not just digital, but intelligently orchestrated.

 

Commentary

Streaming Starting Up More Viewer Sessions Vs. Live?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 8 hours ago

Where you start may be where you end up... when it comes to TV-streaming-video viewing.

New research shows more TV viewers start up their TV efforts with a subscription streaming video service -- with or without ads -- than live TV.

Subscription streaming video and live TV come in at 40% vs. 32%, respectively, according to a recent survey by Hub Entertainment Research.

In 2020, during the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, live was still tops over streaming -- at 43% to 36% -- in this measure.

Note that “live” TV viewing -- in this context -- includes content/networks from traditional pay TV distributors, virtual (internet) pay TV providers, as well as over-the-air "antenna."

Real-time viewing of live content is also factored in -- such as news and sports. Local TV stations in particular, which continue to run multiple hours of news daily, could be taking a hit.

Drilling down to individual platforms, 32% said “live” is their “default” source when turning on their TV set. After “live” 19% cite Netflix, while 11% turn to YouTube and 5% each for Hulu and something called “DVR”.

The situation is more dramatic for those 16-34 years old -- where 56% of those viewers tune to streaming first (and 15% for live), compared to another 22% who go to “free” platforms with ads, which includes YouTube.

At first glance it would seem the TV viewing public is increasingly selective about viewing content.

If news is suffering, does that mean those in the survey are continuing to get news content in other places like social media -- for all audience age groups? Or perhaps, not at all?

YouTube, and straight-up FAST channels (Roku Channel, and Tubi) continue to see rising shares.

Next researchers should try to figure out what specific types of program content viewers are consuming.

And wouldn’t marketers like to know that as well -- for some greater impact? The end justifies the means -- and that engagement means in advertiser-brand parlance.