Thursday, June 25, 2026

Why Sales Coaching Needs a New Playbook

 



Why Sales Coaching Needs a New Playbook

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

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

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

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

Equal Coaching Doesn’t Drive Equal Performance

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

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

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

Skill, Will and Coachability Matter More Than Tenure

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

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

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

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

What Effective Managers Coach

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

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

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

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

The Real Unlock Is the Manager

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

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

Coaching That Scales Performance

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

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

Nielsen: YouTube Gains, Fox-Roku Would Be Third

 

Nielsen: YouTube Gains, Fox-Roku Would Be Third

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Media Plan Is Now a Citation Plan

 Here's what ad agencies are thinking about for their clients which may be adaptable for local direct clients: Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Commentary

The Media Plan Is Now a Citation Plan

More than a third of U.S. consumers now begin product research inside ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews.

The 2026 media plan still does not have a line for that.

Every answer is an ad -- and the spreadsheet your team is filling out right now, which includes GRPs, CPMs, viewability and retargeting, is optimizing distribution for channels your buyers have already partially exited.

The collapse most CMOs haven't priced in

Two years ago, ranking number one on Google meant AI visibility. The same content sat at the top of the page and inside the chatbot answer.

That’s no longer the case. Down from roughly 70% to under 20%, according to data from GEO firm Brandlight and synthesized in our latest research at 5W, the page your media team is buying traffic to does not appear inside the answer your buyer is reading. Your media plan and your visibility plan are now two different documents, but most planners are still treating them as one.


The brief needs to change

Three lines should appear on every 2026 media plan that don't appear today:

Citation share by engine. Your share of mentions inside ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews. You should be measuring against your defined competitor set and across your defined buyer prompts. This is the new share of voice.

Retrieval anchors. The owned and earned assets, like research, executive bylines, structured FAQ pages, trade coverage, are what the engines pull from when answering category prompts.

Prompt-level reporting. Buyers no longer type "best CRM for mid-market." They type a full sentence to an LLM. You should be measuring against the 50–200 prompts that drive your category.

Without those three lines, the media plan you're putting together is deficient.

Why this lands on media buyers first, not PR

Media buying is where the budget lives. PR teams have been arguing about generative AI for two years. The line item lives with the planner, and the planner reports to the CMO, who is being asked in 2026 board meetings the only question that matters: What is our share of the answer?

Ad budgets and answer-engine visibility have decoupled. The planner who continues to optimize against the old correlation is allocating capital against a chart that no longer holds.

What goes into the plan instead

A modern media plan should include:

A baselineCitation audit, scored across five engines and run quarterly. Measure across Citation Frequency (40%), Cross-Engine Breadth (20%), Query-Type Breadth (20%), Extractability (15%), Crawl Access (5%).

AGEO retainer that produces retrieval anchors monthly.  Proprietary research, FAQ schema, executive bylines, trade-press placement engineered for AI retrieval.

Aprompt panel of 50–200 buyer-stage queries the brand reports against the way it once reported against a keyword set.

That is the citation plan. It sits alongside the media plan. In 2027, it absorbs it.

Agentic Transactions, Relationship-Centered TV Ad Industry Not Mutually Exclusive

 

Commentary

Agentic Transactions, Relationship-Centered TV Ad Industry Not Mutually Exclusive

So many see the advertising industry’s fast-emerging AI-driven agentic future as anathema to its relationship-driven core. It isn’t and won’t be, as I learned at the Cannes Lions festival this week.

I flew to France excited to talk about the new developments in agentic transactions in the TV ad world, highlighted by Fox Broadcasting and its industry-first end-to-end agentic platform for streaming and linear TV ad transactions.

I was worried that the Cannes world of panels, presentations and impromptu gatherings would rue the day that automated AI agents would drive the selling and buying of the billions of dollars of TV ads, a process traditionally handled through highly personal phone calls, faxes and handshakes between longtime friends.

But I quickly realized that they're not mutually exclusive.

Spending time in Cannes connects all of us to our industry’s history, so I realized that an advertising world driven by agentic transactions is not new. Agency-driven buying and selling of advertising has been a central part of the media marketplace for centuries, just as agent-driven media networks were, a business popularized by Swiss ad specialist Publicitas in the mid-1800s with its network of German and Swiss newspapers.


Those early agentic transactions and media networks relied on trusted human relationships, epitomized by the emergence of specialist ad buyers and sellers who leveraged the most modern technology of the times: trains, timetables, telegraphs and mechanized typography.

That’s correct. Technology-enabled agentic transactions in the advertising industry are not new. Nor is exploiting the best technology available mutually exclusive to the human relationship center of our historic TV ad industry.

AI-driven streaming and linear TV ad transactions can deliver a level of speed, efficiency, yield management and security critical for both advertisers and media owners, maximizing the value of each and every impression and, importantly, delivering the best experience possible to consumers.

Automated, agentic transactions actually give more importance to the human relationship parts of ad buying and selling. Buyers and sellers both need to exercise care picking which agents to transact with, under what rules, and with constant monitoring. That requires real partnership and a predictability of conduct. And it requires trust.

Given the precious, scarce nature of premium video inventory, TV media owners are not going to grant “agentic rights” lightly. Neither will buyers. We have all seen the fraud, pollution and devalued pricing that real-time bidding platforms and disinterested, brokering intermediaries brought to the world of the banner ad, web video, and CTV advertising.

A big theme at Cannes this year was that quality matters, whether in media or data. Also, trust matters, when deciding whom you transact with and how your campaigns are measured. And the ad industry needs to regain control from those focused on harvesting media rather than creating and building it. That message was preached on every stage.

Creating and building the media world that publishers, advertisers, agencies and consumers deserve requires a high degree of human control. That control and trust can only come through strong, personal human relationships.

Yes, agent transactions are the future of the TV ad world. But so are its human-relationship-centered partnerships.

Nielsen: YouTube Gains, Fox-Roku Would Be Third

 

Nielsen: YouTube Gains, Fox-Roku Would Be Third

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Brand-Safe - And Not-So-Safe - News

 

Commentary

Brand-Safe - And Not-So-Safe - News


New and revealing analysis of ad-supported news content on FAST channels shows that nearly 36% of “news scenes” are fully brand-safe, according to research from Wurl, the streaming subsidiary of AppLovin.

The bottom-line analysis reveals there are significant reasons to buy news content, “meaning advertisers who avoid news scenes altogether are leaving money on the table.”

Research showed brand-safe news content is still lower in brand safety than non-news content (35.7% versus 54.5%, respectively).

Bigger brand-safety risks are involved with content related to "death and harm," at 43%.

Content related to "violence" is next at 31%, followed by content related to "war and conflict" at 31%.

Other categories that were analyzed include content related to sex (at 3%) and profanity (at 2%), content that is derogatory at 2% and drug-related content, also at 2%.


The analysis also notes that politically oriented news is generally brand-safe overall, with brand-safety at 45.5% for blue-leaning news channels vs. 48.3% for red-leaning news platforms.

Better results come with financial news content, which is deemed the most brand-safe.

The study also indicates that heavy news viewers make up 3% of viewing streaming platforms, but comprise 63% of all news viewing.

The future could be better when it comes to deciding whether brands should buy into news, featuring new technology such as “scene-level AI analysis” which is slowly replacing less accurate keywords and categories to deal with unsafe news content.

Wurl says this analysis is important because news audiences are highly concentrated and difficult to reach elsewhere.

Fox-Roku: What's Next - And for Fox One?

 

Commentary

Fox-Roku: What's Next - And for Fox One?

For some time now, Fox Corp. has taken great pains to tell us how important linear TV was -- its Fox Television Network and Fox News Media networks -- even as it launched Fox One, its premium streaming platform, last summer.

So how do we make sense of this in the context of Fox's announcement earlier this week that it would be buying the massive streaming platform Roku for $22 billion?

For many, Fox One (including Fox Corp) the streamer seemed to be a low-key effort to be in the game, with other legacy premium streamers -- Paramount+, Disney+ and Peacock, for example.

Fox One is estimated to have around 2.9 million subscribers -- just a fraction of the business of those other major streamers.

Will the dynamic now change for the company and its streaming platform?

Well, Roku has been offering Fox One since its start in August 2025. So there doesn’t seem to be much of a change there.


With Roku, Fox is now working in another streaming area -- benefitting from its access to Roku’s own Roku Channel, as well as financially from its legacy competitors, to some extent.

For example, Roku gains a share of those streamers' subscription fees -- around 20% revenue share. That is lower compared to the major premium streamers Disney+, Netflix and Prime Video because of their greater market leverage. 

And there is an advertising inventory share as well -- with Roku getting 30% on average, leaving the streamer to maintain 70%. Again, bigger streamers look to command a more favorable share.

This probably will not change things for Fox’s competitors. Many have been through this in the past.

Think about Fox Corp. and others having to negotiate carriage fees with Comcast Corp. on its cable and virtual pay TV services --- all while Comcast’s NBCUniversal operates.

What Fox-Roku gives the company -- in addition to the increasing success of Tubi -- is more heft and reach in terms of more streaming viewership reach and engagement.

This is something major media-buying executives increasingly desire.

Fox is now making its transition back to the big media stage after selling half of its company (movie studios and cable TV networks) to Disney in 2019.

Perhaps the cash-rich Fox Corp. may seek other streaming acquisitions.

Thursday, June 11, 2026

Colbert, Kimmel? Late-Night TV Scores Well on YouTube

 

Commentary

Colbert, Kimmel? Late-Night TV Scores Well On YouTube


Amid controversy over late-night TV, viewer sentiment has generally increased over the last 12 months -- at least when it comes to YouTube viewers.

CBS’ “Late Show With Stephen Colbert” witnessed a 30% increase in unique viewers in April 2026 versus the same period a year earlier to around 6.5 million, according to Tubular Labs.

This came in connection with the announcement in July 2025 that Paramount Skydance would be ending Colbert’s 11-year run on the show, because of what it said were “purely” financial reasons.

In addition, the show’s watch-time on YouTube was up 20% nearing his final episodes with big-name guests weighing in on his show, ending with video content featuring former host David Letterman throwing some of the show’s furniture off the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater.

advertisement

640 x 480.png

advertisement

ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” also grew to 18 million unique viewership in September 2025 following his week-long suspension and reinstatement. Although “Jimmy Kimmel Live” slowly declined in April 2026 (around 11.7 million), it is still up 18% from year-ago levels.

As of April 2026, NBC’s “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” had the strongest results (15.2 million uniques) -- up 45% versus the year before.

Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” was just behind at 14.8 million uniques -- 13% higher than the previous year.

In terms of minutes viewed on YouTube, “The Daily Show” performed the best at around 500 million minutes watched in April, followed by “Jimmy Kimmel Live” at 350 million; and Colbert at 250 million.

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

brand marketing The Brand 'Doom Loop' Now Trapping 84% Of Marketers

 

brand marketing

The Brand 'Doom Loop' Now Trapping 84% Of Marketers

Marketers just can’t seem to escape the tyranny of performance marketing metrics. Gartner has just released a survey of more than 400 senior marketing execs and finds that 84% say the companies they work for are trapped in that familiar cycle known as the “brand doom loop.”

It’s because companies underinvest in brand measurement and lack confidence in the results. Unsurprisingly, it then becomes harder for them to make the case for sustained brand marketing budgets, let alone increases, to increasingly skeptical CEOs and CFOs.

That’s contributed to brand marketing being viewed as an expense that drains capital, rather than an investment that increases revenue.

The “doom loop” phenomenon, first quantified by WARC last year, found companies cutting brand investment to fund performance marketing, which typically produces initial gains in efficiency. This spending strategy is typically optimized using faulty measurement. Over time, performance marketing costs more, because the brand has become less memorable. That forces more spending into performance marketing, even to maintain flat results.


In that research, WARC found over-investing in performance marketing zapped full revenue ROI by 40%. WARC said earmarking at least 30% to brand marketing efforts, but usually between 40% and 60% -- and carefully balancing brand and performance marketing -- led to an average uplift of 90% in ROI.

Gartner’s research finds a similar benefit, noting that companies with a strong brand strategy are twice as likely to exceed growth goals.

Currently, the struggle stems from CMOs who are unable to make a strong brand-spending case. “Brand has long been treated as a communications asset, but it is actually a growth engine,” said Julie Reeves, vice president and analyst in Gartner’s marketing practice, in the announcement. “The challenge is that most organizations lack the measurement discipline and executive narrative needed to connect brand health to business performance.”

Gartner also asked others in the C-suite what might help, with 50% of those execs saying that they're open to elevating brand’s strategic role. More than 50% want their CMO to clarify the relationship between brand and business strategy, and 43% want a clear, simple story that explains how brand health impacts business performance.

Getting Double Checked Marked Up

 

Commentary

Getting Double Checked Marked Up


One of the most interesting things I've covered as an ad trade journalist has been watching how new and emerging media become established media in the advertising market simply by gaining access to its trading currency. 

I witnessed that firsthand during the early 80s when new media muscled their way into what then was the biggest media tent of all: the "Big 3" television networks.

First it was Fox getting rated by Nielsen to become one of the "Big 4," but a series of non-traditional national TV distributors -- including cable networks, national syndication and even an unwired television network, ITN (Independent Television Network) -- eventually muscled their way into that national TV advertising marketplace, as well as the upfront, simply by getting rated by Nielsen.

I'm not sure Nielsen has that "overnight" market-making power to that extent anymore, though it certainly has been working hard to do that, including launching bespoke audience measurement methods for Amazon Prime's "Thursday Night Football," and from what I hear, soon others.


But the modern-day equivalent is the Media Rating Council's accreditation, which has the ability to make a new ad inventory supplier's audience measurement a de facto advertising currency.

In the end, it's up to the marketplace -- both demand- and supply-sides -- to determine what they trade off of when they negotiate and process advertising buys, but having MRC accreditation doesn't hurt. And for many, it's the thin green line of accountability.

Needless to say, the MRC now accredits a wide swatch of new, emerging and next-gen media, but for me its new "point-of-care" category is the one that demonstrates how a new media supplier can become an ad-market currency overnight -- simply by gaining the MRC's two checkmark logo on its audience estimates.

That happened two years ago when the MRC granted accreditation to place-based, digital out-of-home healthcare advertising network PatientPoint, and it just happened again today for CheckedUp, a rival point-of-care advertising network that has been under MRC review.

In the end, it will be up to advertisers and their planners and buyers whether and how they treat CheckedUp's inventory, but at least they know it has passed muster with the MRC.

Monday, June 8, 2026

Agentic Brand Equity

 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

"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.

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

 

Commentary

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

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.

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

 

Commentary

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

“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.