Made possible by

Rokt helps marketers reach high-intent customers in the Transaction Moment™—when they’re actively completing a purchase online. Powered by AI and first-party data, Rokt Ads connects your brand with over 400 million global shoppers and delivers outcomes you can count on. Learn more at rokt.com/emarketer to get started today.

Marcus Johnson (00:04):

Hey, gang. It's Monday, March 2nd. Ethan, Oscar and listeners, welcome to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER podcast. I'm Marcus, and join me for today's conversation. We have two New York based folks. Unfortunately, the weather is not great. Principal forecasting writer, Ethan Cramer-Flood joins us.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (00:21):

Marcus, at least you're here to warm the cockles of my heart even as New York City freezes everything else about my life.

Marcus Johnson (00:28):

Thanks, man. You're welcome. I'm also joined by senior director of forecasting, Oscar Orozco.

Oscar Orozco (00:34):

Marcus, happy to be on. And yes, we are snowed in. It's awful.

Marcus Johnson (00:39):

Not quite as nice a message as Ethan's, but that's fine. We move on. Today's facts. So have you guys heard of the Dunbar number? That's what today's facts is.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (00:52):

No.

Oscar Orozco (00:53):

No.

Marcus Johnson (00:53):

You might have, but maybe you didn't know it was called this because I have heard of this theory but didn't ... forgot the name. So Dunbar number is a proposed cognitive limit on the number of people a person can maintain stable social relationships with. So you probably have heard-

Ethan Cramer-Flood (01:07):

Yes.

Oscar Orozco (01:07):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (01:07):

Yeah, how many people can you have in your life and it be easy to remember who they are and easy to maintain quality relationships with folks. So it's proposed by British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, the magic number is 150, believing there is a ratio between-

Ethan Cramer-Flood (01:25):

Sounds familiar.

Marcus Johnson (01:25):

Say again?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (01:26):

Sounds familiar. Yes.

Marcus Johnson (01:27):

Believing there's a ratio between brain sizes and group sizes through his studies of non-human primates. So if you picture six concentric circles, so one in the middle and then big ones going outside or six concentric social circles. The theory suggests that humans can maintain five very close friends/family. It's your inner circle. 15 good friends, 50, five-zero general friends, 150 meaningful relationships. That is known as the Dunbar number. 500 acquaintances and 1,500 is the maximum number of people that you can recognize.

Oscar Orozco (02:02):

Wow.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (02:03):

500 acquaintances. Does that mean you actually remember all 500 people's names? Because let me tell you, I would struggle with that.

Oscar Orozco (02:09):

Yeah, that seems way too much.

Marcus Johnson (02:11):

I don't think it means a name basis, no, first names basis.

Oscar Orozco (02:15):

I'm going to look at my Facebook friends, and I think I have way less than that.

Marcus Johnson (02:18):

Oh, Facebook friends. Yeah.

Oscar Orozco (02:19):

Does this sound-

Marcus Johnson (02:19):

17 million is the social number of friends you're allowed before it gets out of control. But there's a lot of benefits to having high quality relationships. The better or the higher quality of friendships, the longer you'll live. There are multiple studies articles that point to research to link the two. Harvard Health, National Institute of Health, Oxford Institute of Population Aging, the Mayo Clinic, Michigan State University, et cetera, et cetera. So it does help to have high quality friends.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (02:47):

I can see that.

Oscar Orozco (02:50):

It just sounds exhausting though.

Marcus Johnson (02:54):

Okay. That's why I'm not going to live long, because I have to deal with these two guys.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (03:00):

As long as I don't have to know their names, I'm happy to have a lot of friends.

Marcus Johnson (03:00):

That's a nice sentiment. Today's real topic, social media addiction and the other places we spend on media time. All right, let me set the table quick. The world's largest social media companies have been accused of creating "addiction machines," in quotes, as a landmark six-week trial just kicked off in California, examining the mental health effects of Instagram and YouTube, writes Lily Jamali of the BBC. The tech addiction trial features a 20-year-old California woman accusing Meta and YouTube of building their platforms to be addictive, like "digital casinos," in quotes, leading to personal injury and other harm.

(03:37):

Hundreds of similar cases have been rolled up into this one Bellwether case. The plaintiff identified as KGM, became hooked on YouTube and Instagram as a kid because of features including endless scrolling, likened to that of a slot machine. The prosecution will present evidence showing these platforms know what they're doing, including a 2015 email, Meta boss, Mark Zuckerberg demanded that "time spent increases by 12%", in quotes, on Meta platforms to meet internal business goals. Lawyers for Meta and YouTube told the jury that the plaintiff's addiction stemmed from other issues in her life, not the negligence of the platforms, and that they reject liability for how their platforms are used by people. So that's what's going on. Oscar, I'll start with you. Biggest takeaways from the social media addiction trial so far?

Oscar Orozco (04:22):

I mean for me, I think we've absolutely hit a tipping point here, and I know the press has been reporting on comparing it a lot to the big tobacco trials, and I think that's entirely fair. I mean, this has huge implications. I looked a little bit into it, more so on what that trial ... It was the big master settlement agreement in 1998, what kind of impact it had on tobacco, and it really has. I mean, we've seen a drastic decline in smoking. Adult smoking rates fell from, I think it was 25 to 30% in the early '90s to about 10% just a few years ago.

(05:05):

Thinking of it more from our angle, it banned billboard advertising for tobacco companies and branded merchandise and cartoon ads, and it just really significantly changed how these products were marketed. So also public opinion shift. Right? It really did destroy the tobacco industry and how they were looked at. So again, maybe it won't be as tumultuous for social media companies, but I think it's very close to that. And that's the point we're at here. I think it's going to change how people look at social media platforms, how they use them, and ultimately that does have generational effect into the coming decades as well. That's one big, big thing.

Marcus Johnson (05:47):

That's one of my takeaways. What is the prosecution hoping for when it comes to remedies? I actually jumped straight to desert in this trial. Sure, monetary penalties likely, but if the plaintiff, if the prosecution wins. But likely to have little to no impact on this tech giant. So what else? Time restrictions for young users that would prohibit school time and nighttime use. Deactivating addictive design features like infinite scroll, auto play and algorithmic recommendations, and then disabling filters that enhance photos or perceptions of beauty. Some suggestions.

Oscar Orozco (06:25):

Looking at it from time spent versus a revenue angle, I think the implications and the impact are stronger on the time spent side because it's going to be more direct, as you said. I mean, I think it could very much lead to big differences in how these apps are created, the content that's on there, how personalized the content is, as you said. Maybe making features where it literally locks users out after a certain amount of time just to enforce these limits. So there's a million different ways that changes can be implemented. So far, we've only seen a few things, Right? More like passive privacy settings and little restrictions here and there that teens are ignoring. But yeah, it feels like a huge moment that we're facing.

Marcus Johnson (07:11):

Yeah. Maybe this nudges government closer to a ban for under 16-year-olds. We've seen that in Australia, other countries as well following suit with legislation. India, Spain, Denmark, the UK thinking about it as well. These platforms, obviously you have to be 13 and above, so maybe this pushes that in the direction of 16-plus. Ethan, what were some of your takeaways there?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (07:33):

I mean, my first one listening to you guys is that the social networks and particularly Meta should have taken a lesson from the tobacco people and stopped passing around internal documents that talk about all the ways that your own product is dangerous. If you find yourself writing an email about the ways that you might be creating poison, just keep in mind that a judge is going to see it someday.

Marcus Johnson (07:53):

Yes, and that was one of the things, some very interesting internal documents, like Cecilia Kang of New York Times. Pointing to a few YouTube, they're one of the big tech companies in this case. A YouTube presentation showed how the company courted under four-year-olds, comparing itself to a babysitter. Another document showed YouTube's parent company referring to some products as slot machines directly and included an image of a casino saying quote, "These are attention casinos. The house always wins." And then in Meta's instance, there were two cases where Meta employees said the company's tactics reminded them of tobacco companies, linking to what you are saying, Oscar. An internal Meta document from 2018 reads, "If we want to win big with tweens, we must bring them in as ..." Sorry, "as teens, we must bring them in as tweens." Despite Facebook and Instagram having a 13 year age limit, the document saying people who joined Facebook at 11 had four times the long-term retention as people who joined at 20.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (08:54):

Yeah, it's not a good look. It is not a good look. And one of the other things I haven't mentioned yet that I did find fascinating in advance of the trial was that TikTok and Snapchat settled in advance.

Marcus Johnson (09:04):

Yes.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (09:05):

When I saw that, I was like, "Well that's interesting because if this was going to be a slam dunk victory on the social media side, they wouldn't have settled." I'm guessing. Now things are also, there's a lot of complicated reasons that people don't want to go to court, right? So I can't presume as to what that was all about. But if they thought this was going to be a walk in the park, they probably wouldn't have done that. Which then signals the possibility on the other side that the plaintiffs consider themselves to have a chance, which maybe in the first instance when looking at this, we might immediately think, "That's a tough case. I don't know that they can really prove this." But on the other hand, two of the biggest ones, and particularly TikTok, which by our own numbers would probably be the single biggest violator, at least in terms of the amount of time that kids spend on it. They didn't want any part of this. They got out, but it's certainly not going to be over.

Marcus Johnson (09:57):

Out of this case, other cases to come this year.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (09:58):

Right. There's other cases to come and then particularly if their peers fail in this case, then the floodgates are going to open wide open and no one's going to be safe. Certainly TikTok might be at the top of the list. And then the other takeaway for me was about YouTube. And of course everything that you just said is pretty damning in terms of the internal conversation they had.

Marcus Johnson (10:16):

Not right.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (10:17):

But I do find it fascinating. Their take is that, "We're not a part of this. We're not social media. We're a very different type of product and all these other ones we shouldn't even be here. We are in fact a digital video entertainment company. We're much more like Netflix. And so how can you put us with these guys when we're ..." And they have a case according to our own numbers, in a lot of the ways that we now talk about YouTube. They really do have a case. They are much more like a video entertainment company than a social media company these days, at least in terms of the percentage of time is spent on it doing one thing versus doing the other, how people consume it, versus this is for the whole population, not necessarily kids.

(10:54):

So they have a case on that, but on the other hand it's like, so what? I mean, is the judge going to care whether you are a social media or a social network or not? It seems like the merit of the case is still pretty much fundamentally related to the documentation that you just revealed that they were talking about inside in terms of, are you a harmful product?

Marcus Johnson (11:13):

Yes. And the addictive design features, infinite scroll, auto play, algorithmic recommendations, they span across all of these.

Oscar Orozco (11:18):

Yeah.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (11:19):

Yeah. So if you're doing these things, it doesn't matter if you're social or not social. Anyway, we're going to come get you. So in my head I'm like, they really do have a case, but I don't know if that case is going to matter to the people that are making decisions.

Oscar Orozco (11:31):

I mean, this is a good point though. I mean we're talking way into the future, start impacting just any platform at all that gets too big, right?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (11:39):

Right.

Oscar Orozco (11:39):

We're talking Roblox. It could be specific games that teens and tweens are using, so that's what we're referring to. I was referring to at the beginning, the implications spread very far and wide, and it's just beginning from my angle. I think this is just a rebuke of just how much time people are spending with devices online and how harmful it can be.

Marcus Johnson (12:05):

Yeah. Don't make notes of the incriminating evidence is really big. This one, last one really got me. One Meta document from 2015 showing how an estimated 30% of 10 to 12 year olds in the U.S. were using Instagram, and that the company had a goal to increase the time with 10 year olds on Instagram. The problem here is, and we've had a similar conversations in the past. So it does feel like we're almost at a kind of cultural tipping point. But why should this be any different from the other times, to play devil's advocate? Causation, this always seems to be sticking point. Causation is almost next to impossible to prove. Correlation is not a crime. And so I think that's where a lot of this will come down to is, and that's what the lawyers are going in on, is that people have other things going on in their lives. How can you point just to social media as the reason this person is struggling with depression or anxiety or mental health issues?

(13:01):

What do the experts say? April Rubin of Axios writing, "The American Psychiatric Association define social media addiction as in quotes, 'Problematic and compulsive use and an obsessive need to check and update platforms.' But excessive social media use has not been classified as an addiction in the DSM-5, which is the authoritative guide for diagnosing mental disorders."

(13:26):

Big tech lawyers arguing that family abuse and trauma led to the plaintiff's mental health issues, and there is no clinical scientific evidence proving that their platform caused addiction. So we're talking about how much folks can't get off their phones in terms of using social media. We look at social media use and our time spent with media forecasts. Ethan, what do our numbers tell us about social media usage in America?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (13:55):

Yeah, I mean it's not going to be any surprise to anyone that people spend a lot of time every day on these networks and particularly if you count YouTube. As I mentioned before, we carve YouTube out. We don't count it as a social network. But people spend well over an hour and a half per day on the socials, and they spend almost an hour on YouTube. So it adds, if you add them together, it's one of, if not, the biggest chunk of time that we collectively spend.

(14:23):

However as you know, Oscar and I come here once or twice every year and reveal the absolutely horrifying and staggering top-line number to how much time we total spend with media, and it's this god-awful figure that's approaching 13 hours. We come here and we horrify the listeners once or twice a year with this figure.

Oscar Orozco (14:45):

Yes, always.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (14:46):

So it depends how you look at the social media thing. Because if you think about 13 hours a day with any kind of media, which is what the average adult is doing now in the U.S., an hour and a half with social doesn't actually seem so catastrophic. Now, this trial is about kids, and this is an all population, adult population figure. And to what degree something is harmful for kids is a different kind of a question.

(15:12):

But social networks, they're taking an hour and 37 a day, but that's what, 17% of the pie. But in some cases, it doesn't look that bad. We as a society spend more time with subscription streaming. We spend far more time with Netflix and Disney+ and Hulu and Amazon Prime and all those guys than we do with the socials.

Oscar Orozco (15:34):

And traditional TV.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (15:35):

We actually spend more time with TV.

Oscar Orozco (15:36):

Yeah, that's shocking. But it's getting close. I think we don't have these numbers, but I would say within the next five years it's very possible social time will surpass linear TV time.

Marcus Johnson (15:50):

Right. We have digital video overtaking linear soon?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (15:56):

Digital video is long since overtaken TV.

Marcus Johnson (15:58):

[inaudible 00:15:58].

Ethan Cramer-Flood (15:58):

So we've split it up into the types of video. So the subscription streaming will overtake TV next year. People were probably surprised to find out that hasn't happened already. In fact, people might be surprised to find out that social networks haven't overtaken TV yet, but they haven't. We still spend two hours a day with TV. So there's just a lot between gaming and digital audio and radio and print and reading and YouTube and messaging and everything you do on your phone. The social part of it does end up kind of small. So I guess this would be an argument that the social folks would use in their trial.

Oscar Orozco (16:33):

They could. I would argue, we have seven other markets that we estimate that we have estimates for here at EMARKETER and the U.S. from a social angle. It's much higher than markets like the UK, Canada. We look at Japan, South Korea, China, France and Germany. So yeah, I mean there's no comparison. The U.S. numbers, the average daily engagement numbers are way higher. Some of these shares are crazy. I mean, another way of looking at it is it's higher than just the average time people spend on their desktop or laptop. They spend just with their ... excuse me, with their social networks. We just expect growth to happen. There's so many big drivers, AI curating the content people see. It's becoming more addicting. More video in social. We know video drives up time. And there are new platforms, like Threads is a huge catalyst. And we're seeing Blue Sky and just other smaller players, and then so much growth we've seen with Reddit and LinkedIn. So the numbers are going to keep going up. They will.

Marcus Johnson (17:40):

They are starting to slow down in terms of ... I was looking at both across adult population. So it's an hour and 37 minutes, that is ticking up by a minute or two every year. Across social network users, it seems to have almost plateaued-

Ethan Cramer-Flood (17:57):

Yeah.

Oscar Orozco (17:57):

Plateaued.

Marcus Johnson (17:58):

... in terms of social network. Right?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (17:59):

Yeah. Which is an interesting storyline that they could also emphasize almost to the point of this argument is happening too late, and that the era of explosive social network growth is already over. Many of them are peaking. And then at an individual platform level, many of these guys could also tell the story of like, "Hey man, we're actually losing now." I don't think Mark Zuckerberg wants to go out in public and trial and talk about how Facebook is actually struggling, but it is, right? Unfortunately, he owns Instagram also, so he can't really make the case. But Instagram is still growing like gangbusters and claiming more share and gaining minutes. Reddit is on fire, is taking more and more of everyone's time, but many of them aren't. X is going down, no surprises there. But Snapchat is also going down, losing users and losing time. TikTok was declining for a little while, and now it's sort of plateauing.

(18:57):

So they do have different stories. And the way in which we as a society are interacting with these platforms is not the same. Many of them are actually losing time. Again, this is the whole population, not kids. So TikTok probably doesn't have a strong leg to stand on when its relationship with kids, with the under 18 set. But overall many of these guys are not actually in as strong a position as they once were, because we are all doing other things now and maybe there's social fatigue, social network, social media fatigue. I think that's certainly a real thing. Competition is fierce.

(19:30):

People are moving away from this. They're spending more time in front of their CTVs where we're watching traditional long form content, whether we're paying for it or watching it for free. And actually we're doing that on YouTube also. So YouTube doesn't really have a leg to stand on. They're still experiencing explosive growth because of all the different ways you can use YouTube.

Marcus Johnson (19:47):

Yeah. Over half of YouTube.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (19:48):

It depends who you're and where you're sitting.

Marcus Johnson (19:51):

I think over half of YouTube on CTV now.

Oscar Orozco (19:52):

Look, my quick counter arguments is this is all true. This is what our numbers show, but it can change. I mean, I would say our estimates have over the years consistently, we've under forecasted this metric, this engagement metric. And I think you mentioned some of this, Ethan, the CTV story. I mean we are seeing Meta IG specifically making a push toward the connected TV app that's going to drive up. It could drive up engagement, right? The AI story I mentioned that's boosting content relevance. It's unlocking more value there for the users. I mean, Reddit, if it really, really becomes that Wikipedia of sorts, right, this new search engine for users, and then even the social commerce story. We're seeing growth there. What if they can really unlock that commerce piece? People start shopping there. So there are all of these. We are seeing that, but what I'm saying is keep an eye on these numbers. They could very well ... We could be wrong. They could very well [inaudible 00:20:54].

Marcus Johnson (20:54):

I think that's an episode in the making, is social media's pivot to CTV, especially considering that so many people using social media are there just to consume the content. Right? We saw that with TikTok or some of the numbers. I think Pew Research showing about 25% of people on TikTok are creating. Everyone else is just consuming. So if you have that much consumption, why not open up an app on the TV and consume? And maybe there's a camera in your TV or you put it on top of your TV and if you want to make content in front of the TV and post it, then you can. Similar to X/Twitter years ago. I think it was a couple of percent of Twitter users were the ones who were doing most of the, ... I think it was 10% of the users responsible for 80% of the content, something like that.

(21:33):

So absolutely an episode we should talk about. [inaudible 00:21:35] in the episode though, we've been talking a lot about social media addiction and social media use, what the numbers say. Ethan, you've been working on some research for us about time spent with media in general. So that's looking as we said, traditional TV, radio, print, digital platforms. What were some of the most interesting takeaways from your updated research in terms of where else American spend time with media?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (21:57):

Yeah. So this is the general top-line stuff that we report on twice a year. There's lots and lots of interesting stuff in here. I encourage anyone who can to go read the report. Breaks it all down by activity and by device and by platform. Probably just the growth story in as much as that horrifying top-line number of 13 hours a day that we're all spending with media in turn means that growth is pretty hard to find. We're all so maxed out. And so although it does continue to increase, that top-line number does continue to go up every year, the amount of media activities that are actually seeing increases has become quite small.

(22:42):

So almost all growth now basically just comes from digital video via CTV, right, which ties into what we were talking about. This is why the social networks, how do we, to your point, Marcus, and we have a colleague, Minda, who focuses a lot on this. Why are the social media companies so desperate to figure out a way to get onto CTV and have us start scrolling their nonsense on CTV? Because that's where basically all the growth is now. But the growth is entirely going, almost entirely going to subscription streaming, free ad supported streaming television, AKA fast, and YouTube, because YouTube is now what we all do on our CTVs. That's it.

(23:20):

I mean, there's three things. That accounts for almost all the growth we're seeing anywhere in any form. The rest of them, whether it's digital gaming or digital audio or messaging or whatever else, or social networks, they might gain a minute, maybe two minutes, maybe they'll lose. I think gaming is even losing time, or they're just totally flat. So for those folks still looking for new time, it's really come down to just digital video of via CTV.

Marcus Johnson (23:49):

Okay. Oscar, how about for you? What were some of your takeaways?

Oscar Orozco (23:51):

Yeah, I mean I think what Ethan said is again are the main drivers. But I really want to shout out platforms like Spotify, like Apple Music. So the digital audio piece, why we are seeing more of this intersection of video and audio. Spotify is really pushing videos in their platform. You're seeing that. They're also making a move towards the CTV, and we are seeing that in our numbers. There's more time, more engagement with audio platforms on the CTV. So that goes very well with the video component. And of course podcasting. We're on one right now. We're seeing growth there, audio books. So I think that there's a lot of potential on the audio side and I think it's [inaudible 00:24:38].

Marcus Johnson (24:38):

Apple. Apple podcast just announcing that video, they're going to be offering a video podcasts as well for the first time.

Oscar Orozco (24:43):

Video podcasts. One of the big stories last year was the YouTube story with video podcasts. So a lot there with the audio piece. I think it's something that's done some of the time more passively, but it is such an important part of media consumption for users. So I would call that out.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (25:01):

That's a good shout out. The last time we're on here, we were shouting out podcast data too, and I think ad spending. It's a good point that podcast growth is still pretty strong, even though top line audio isn't, which almost suggests that podcasts are stealing time from music. I'm not sure if we actually declare that because podcasts are growing, but audio overall isn't really growing.

Oscar Orozco (25:23):

We don't show that necessarily, and I think Spotify would say that they are not seeing that type of cannibalization internally, and I don't think that's the case. Something that we will have to monitor, but yeah.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (25:35):

Yeah, we'll take a look. We'll take a look.

Oscar Orozco (25:36):

Yeah, audio.

Marcus Johnson (25:37):

That's a good one. We've got them listed fourth here. So traditional TV, subscription OTT, social networks, and then digital audio, about an hour and a half, just shy of an hour and a half of time every single day. The one that I had was just traditional holding its own despite how digital out lives feel, 30% of our media consumption is still spent with traditional media. Next year, 29%, so from 30 to 29. So going down, but very, very slowly. At least for this year, traditional TV is number one. Media challenge in terms of time spent. Radio is in fifth and way ahead of time spent with digital gaming or YouTube.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (26:16):

Yeah. Shout out traditional TV. I think for many of us probably just spent an inordinately, unusually large amount of time with our regular TVs watching the Olympics. So it's not hard to believe. There are certain times when you do notice yourself just watching TV. I'm like, oh yeah.

Marcus Johnson (26:32):

This works.

Oscar Orozco (26:35):

I mentioned even radio in cars. That's a big driver of radio time, so that's still very much a thing. So yeah, that's another driver for sure for traditional.

Marcus Johnson (26:46):

I bought a newspaper this past weekend. I buy a paper every Sunday just because I like something physical to read where there's not a ton of ads or things like infinite scroll. I can just sit and read the paper, and my dad's nearly had ... I'm at home right now in England. He was like, "Is that a newspaper?" He had to touch it. He was like, "Wow." He tried to scroll, swipe across it. This isn't how it works. You have to turn the page. But yeah, print still there because of me. I'm propping up the market. Anyway, Ethan's full report is called U.S. Time Spent With Media in 2026. Also, he's got a time spent with social media report coming out in a couple of days, and look out for the Time Spent With OTT video as well. [inaudible 00:27:28] subscribers can head to EMARKETER.com. Link is of course in the show notes, at least for the U.S. time spent one. You have to head to the site for the others. That's all we have time for today. Thank you so much to my guests. Thank you first to Ethan.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (27:39):

I'm going back into my hibernation den without this horrible weather.

Marcus Johnson (27:43):

Good luck growth for you in the summer.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (27:44):

Thanks for having me.

Marcus Johnson (27:45):

Thank you so much to Oscar.

Oscar Orozco (27:46):

You've made me want to read maybe a magazine. I think I might do that. Might do that, physical one.

Marcus Johnson (27:51):

Rolling Stone?

Oscar Orozco (27:52):

Thank you.

Marcus Johnson (27:52):

Sports Illustrated. Where we at?

Oscar Orozco (27:54):

There you go. The Economist.

Marcus Johnson (27:57):

[inaudible 00:27:57]. He doesn't read The Economist. Don't let him fool you. Thanks so much to the production crew.

Oscar Orozco (28:00):

Thanks for having me, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson (28:03):

Of course, fella. Thanks to the production crew, Danny and Lance helping us out with this one. And they really did have to help us out because Oscar was just a disaster at the beginning. Thanks to him and thanks to everyone to listening to Behind the Numbers an EMARKETER podcast. Come hang with Susie on Wednesday for the Reimagined Retail Show where she'll be speaking with Blake and Sky to ask, does every retailer need a chief entertainment officer? Yeah.