Marcus Johnson (00:05):

Hey gang, it's Friday, January 2nd. Paul, Suzy, Blake, and listeners, happy brand new year. Welcome back to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast. I'm Marcus. And joining me for our first episode of the year we have VP of Content living in Maine. It's Paul Verna.

Paul Verna (00:22):

Great to be here and Happy New Year, everyone. Kind of feels like it's still 2025.

Marcus Johnson (00:30):

[00:00:30] We're only two days in, so that will happen. Also, VP of Content most of our Reimagining Retail show living in New York, Suzy Davidkhanian.

Suzy Davidkhanian (00:41):

Hello. Happy New Year.

Marcus Johnson (00:44):

Same. And also in New York, senior analyst, Blake Droesch.

Blake Droesch (00:49):

I don't know, Paul. It feels like it's already 2027 to me. This year's gone on far too long.

Paul Verna (00:54):

Time flies when you're having fun.

Marcus Johnson (00:56):

Yeah. We had a rough pre-game. That's what [00:01:00] Blake's referencing. Today's real topic, the Big Quiz of 2026, trivia, headlines, and milestones.

(01:11):

All right, folks. Hope you had the happiest of holidays. We are back, and we thought we would ease you into the year by having a bit of fun, but also learning some things along the way. So we have a big quiz for you, and we're looking mainly forwards into 2026, a couple of references to last year, but this is all [00:01:30] about the future, all about this year.

(01:36):

All right, here's how it works. Three rounds, facts of the year, future headlines, and history in the making. Good answers get points. The other kind will receive a look of condemnation. Open Slack to send me your answers.

(01:49):

Round one. Facts of the year, 'cause we normally have a fact of the day. So we've got a couple of facts of the year for you.

(01:55):

Three questions per round. This is a multiple choice round as we ease ourselves into the year with some random [00:02:00] trivia related questions.

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:04):

Wait, how many rounds per this one? It's three times three?

Marcus Johnson (02:08):

Yes. All played.

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:11):

For the first set, for the multiple choice?

Marcus Johnson (02:14):

Three questions in each of the three rounds.

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:17):

Okay. I'm just checking how many maximum points I can get.

Marcus Johnson (02:20):

Okay.

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:21):

Just checking.

Marcus Johnson (02:22):

All right. How does that ... I can't. Question one. In Japanese, the word karaoke [00:02:30] literally translates to what, A) communal singing, B) empty orchestra, or C) amateur? In Japanese, the word karaoke literally translates to what, communal singing, empty orchestra, or amateur?

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:47):

We promised not to Google, but this was an easy Google.

Marcus Johnson (02:52):

Well, apparently you didn't Google it because the correct answer-

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:55):

Yeah, I didn't get it-

Marcus Johnson (02:56):

... is empty orchestra.

Suzy Davidkhanian (03:00):

[00:03:00] Oh, come on. Did anybody get it?

Marcus Johnson (03:00):

Which is C. No, sorry, which is B. Paul and Blake each got it. Suzy, you said amateur.

Suzy Davidkhanian (03:06):

They Googled it. I knew it. I'm going to start Googling.

Paul Verna (03:09):

I did not Google it.

Suzy Davidkhanian (03:11):

I'm going to start Googling.

Marcus Johnson (03:11):

One point for Paul. One for Blake.

Blake Droesch (03:11):

Pretty common I was saying.

Marcus Johnson (03:15):

Yeah. Pretty common. Nightclub musician, Daisuke-

Suzy Davidkhanian (03:18):

I've never been to Japan, so I didn't know.

Marcus Johnson (03:20):

You don't have to. Daisuke Inoue is credited with inventing the karaoke machine in 1971. How Stuff Works explains folks used to do karaoke [00:03:30] with a live band, still can in some places. One's like the one Mr. Inoue played in. But he couldn't read music, and so it was hard for him to memorize all the songs. So he invented a machine to impersonate a backing band, hence the name empty orchestra. Put himself out of work though, I noticed. Probably made a lot with the karaoke machine.

Paul Verna (03:50):

Well, actually last year I did a client event with StackAdapt and they had a live karaoke band. So there you go.

Marcus Johnson (03:57):

They're the most fun. [00:04:00] I'm not actually-

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:00):

That's how you knew.

Paul Verna (04:00):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (04:01):

I've not done it, but there wasn't one in Arlene's Grocery, which is a bar down in Lower East Side-

Paul Verna (04:06):

Yeah, I've been there.

Marcus Johnson (04:06):

Oh yeah? They have a great one. It's a lot of fun, but yeah, live band's much better. Anyway, a point for Paul, a point for Blake. Nothing for Suzy.

(04:16):

Question two. How do gen two penguins propose to their mates? They present them with, A) a pebble, B) a seashell, or C) a fish? How do [00:04:30] gen two penguins propose to their mates? They present them with what? A pebble, a seashell, or a fish?

Paul Verna (04:36):

So these are-

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:37):

I didn't even watch the penguin movie.

Paul Verna (04:39):

These are second generation penguins. Gen two.

Marcus Johnson (04:44):

Oh, for crying out loud.

Paul Verna (04:45):

Sorry, cut that out.

Marcus Johnson (04:48):

I wish we could.

Paul Verna (04:48):

That was worse than awful.

Marcus Johnson (04:51):

Yeah. But Paul is correct. A pebble. They present them with a pebble.

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:55):

Wait, didn't I say pebble too?

Marcus Johnson (04:57):

No, you said B. That's a seashell. Okay. So [00:05:00] Paul gets the point.

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:02):

No, B was pebble.

Marcus Johnson (05:02):

No, it wasn't. Paul, did you know that? Or you guessed?

Paul Verna (05:05):

I just ... I mean, I've spent some time at penguin colonies in Argentina, but I had a vague recollection.

Marcus Johnson (05:13):

Have you really? Have you been to see the penguins?

Paul Verna (05:14):

I have. Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (05:15):

Oh, you have? So he's witnessed this.

Paul Verna (05:16):

I had a vague recollection about the penguin, about the pebble, but this was 20 plus years ago. So it's not like I've ... I wasn't sure about the answer, but it was my best guess.

Marcus Johnson (05:26):

Yeah, well played. Pebbles form the base of their nests together. [00:05:30] So it kind of suggests the idea of creating a home. No one? All right. Fair enough. Not the romantic types on the show.

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:37):

No.

Marcus Johnson (05:37):

We move on.

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:38):

We're the winning types. We're not winning.

Marcus Johnson (05:39):

Well, some of you with points.

(05:42):

Question three. What was Rome's Colosseum named after? A-

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:46):

Oh, come on.

Marcus Johnson (05:48):

Colossia, the name of the district where it was built. B) the colossal bronze statue of Emperor Nero that used to stand next to the building. Or C) Colligere, the Latin word [00:06:00] for together. Was it named after the district in which it was built? The colossal bronze statue of Emperor Nero that used to be close to it? Or the Latin word for ... Sorry, to gather. I said together, I think.

Suzy Davidkhanian (06:14):

Oh, now I'm going to change my answer, but it's too late.

Marcus Johnson (06:17):

You want to?

Suzy Davidkhanian (06:17):

No.

Marcus Johnson (06:19):

Okay. The answer is B, the colossal bronze statue, which Paul got correct again.

Paul Verna (06:28):

And I pressed it before you even [00:06:30] read C.

Marcus Johnson (06:31):

You did fine.

Paul Verna (06:31):

I was so sure of it.

Marcus Johnson (06:33):

Try to get the answers in. Yeah, colossal bronze statue of Emperor Nero that used to stand next to the building. Paul, have you been, and is that why you knew? You went on a tour or something?

Paul Verna (06:42):

I have been a couple times. I don't think that's why I knew. I think I probably read it in a book when I was in grade school. Like it's The Colossus and that's the Colosseum.

Marcus Johnson (06:55):

Yeah, the original name of the Colosseum was the Flavian Amphitheater named after the Flavian [00:07:00] dynasty of emperors who built it. It could hold about as many people as the Chicago Bears football stadium, which is amazing because it was built a while ago and I don't think the Bear Stadium is going to be there in hundreds of years into the future. Perhaps, but probably not.

Paul Verna (07:19):

The shelf life of the stadium in the US is about, it's going down to 15 years now.

Marcus Johnson (07:25):

Max. After one, we have Paul ahead with three, Blake with a [00:07:30] respectable one. Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:32):

Yes. These are not my forte. We didn't study this in grade school.

Marcus Johnson (07:36):

No points. Round two, future headlines.

(07:45):

In this best answer wins round, we come up with some 2026 headlines by taking a glance at some of the major ones from 2025 and projecting them into this year. Best answers get three. Second-best get two, last gets one. First [00:08:00] future headline is in reference to YouTube and watching the platform on TV.

(08:09):

So in 2025, so last year, YouTube became the most watched platform on televisions with 13% of all TV time going to YouTube, according to Nielsen's Gauge. But what share will it have, YouTube watched on televisions, by the end of 2026 this year? Paul.

Paul Verna (08:26):

So the headline is in 2026, YouTube [00:08:30] went from being the most watched platform on TVs to really being the most watched platform with an average share of over 14%. No, 14.3% for the year.

Marcus Johnson (08:41):

Oh, better.

Paul Verna (08:42):

So just for context, starting in February of 2025, YouTube became the number one most watched platform above Disney. Prior to that, they had not been the top except for one month in 2024. What's happened since then is that YouTube [00:09:00] has basically widened that share. And in 2026, they have done so even more getting from 13 plus percent to 14 plus percent.

Marcus Johnson (09:10):

Okay. So Paul thinks 14.3. Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (09:14):

In 2026, YouTube became the most watched platform on TV going to almost 20%. And it's because YouTube is revamping some of the tools that they're working on to optimize screening onto TVs. They're working through some [00:09:30] different bundling. And I know that while when we think about creator and influencers, we think about social media and small screens, YouTube is leaning really heavily into that. And we know that on the reverse side, social platforms are also trying to figure out how to be on TV screen. So I think all of that confluence of things will help it leapfrog even further ahead.

Marcus Johnson (09:52):

Okay. So Paul, 14.3, Suzy, 20. Blake?

Blake Droesch (09:57):

I don't love this headline, but if I have [00:10:00] to participate here, I would say in 2026, YouTube went from being the most watched platform on TV to still being the most watched platform on TV.

Marcus Johnson (10:12):

Yeah, everyone.

Blake Droesch (10:13):

I mean, it's a little flat. I'd punch it up if I had the editorial oversight, but I guess that's not part of the game. I'll take my one point for this round and just add that I think it'll be about 15%. I think I'm closer to Paul's estimation.

(10:29):

13% [00:10:30] is still massive. And even though we're seeing the shift from YouTube going to larger screens, I think there's still a large part of that audience that's going to continue to just be mobile first in general. So I think that it will continue to become a bigger part of TV, but there's a lot that's still holding it back from even more significant growth mainly because it's already huge.

Marcus Johnson (11:00):

[00:11:00] So some good answers. I think Blake's can be closest. So I went with the 15% from Blake. Then I went Paul because I think 14's also close, but also some good rationale. Suzy lost.

Suzy Davidkhanian (11:15):

Of course.

Marcus Johnson (11:16):

Yeah. But ...

Suzy Davidkhanian (11:18):

Trying to make it easy for you.

Marcus Johnson (11:23):

You are. But all solid answers. I think, yeah, I was surprised though, maybe I wasn't surprised, but I wondered if anyone would say, "Actually, Netflix," [00:11:30] and now Paul, we spoke about this, "but it's going to take a while for the deal to go through the Wonder Bros. Discovery deal. So what would that do to it?" It doesn't really look like there's any other contenders really threatening it, but I wondered if you thought it can only get to so much and then it's going to flatline. I mean, maybe 14% is that Paul basically 'cause it's either-

Paul Verna (11:49):

You're jumping ahead to the 2027 episode, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson (11:52):

My apologies. All right, let's move to our second question. And we're talking about, oh, we're talking about shoppers starting to [00:12:00] let AI agents do more and more for them. In 2025, last year, we saw OpenAI launch instant checkout and Amazon rolled out its Help Me Decide feature, but how much control will shoppers give to AI agents in 2026, and why? Suzy, I'll start with you.

Suzy Davidkhanian (12:18):

I think shoppers will give less than 10% full control in the process. And the way I would think about it is that there's a difference between full control, 100% control of a buying decision [00:12:30] and assisted help. So I think assisted AI shopping will be much higher, probably one in two. Today, we know that 33% use AI assistance regularly to make a purchase or discover a brand or interact with a brand. So I think '26, there'll be even more, and there's a lot of movement on the retailer front trying to figure it out, but I think consumers still are very curious and they're not ready to give up full controls, so less than 10%.

Marcus Johnson (12:58):

Okay. Blake.

Blake Droesch (13:00):

[00:13:00] I would say probably closer to around 1%. I think there are a lot of shoppers that are starting to use AI for those sort of very upper funnel discovery activities. But when you think about the influence that it's going to have on purchase decisions, [00:13:30] I think it's still going to be pretty negligible.

(13:34):

And then, in terms of actually driving conversions, so keeping the shopper engaged and using AI beyond that discovery phase, I still think that it's really not being leveraged a ton there either. I mean, there are some ways that shoppers are beginning to use AI to sort of evaluate different products, but I think that when [00:14:00] you start to look at things like detailed product descriptions, and price comparisons in real time, you really need to leave the AI platforms in order to get those sort of really up-to-date specifics. So I think it's not really there yet. So it's still really just around 1%.

Marcus Johnson (14:19):

You went long, and it reminded me of the weekly listen when you used to do the same, and I would give you negative two points, but I'm not going to do that.

Blake Droesch (14:26):

Made you feel nostalgic for, you know.

Marcus Johnson (14:28):

Yeah, it did. Maybe get extra points.

Blake Droesch (14:30):

[00:14:30] A great franchise. Maybe I can get a few extra points.

Suzy Davidkhanian (14:33):

I'm not nostalgic.

Marcus Johnson (14:35):

It was a good answer.

Suzy Davidkhanian (14:35):

I don't like the losing piece.

Marcus Johnson (14:39):

Suzy says 10% roughly will be given to AI agents. Blake says one. Paul, what say you?

Paul Verna (14:47):

In 2026, shoppers started letting AI agents do very little for them. Anyone who thought agentic AI would take over not just the discovery and consideration and shopping stages of [00:15:00] the purchase path, but the actual transaction process, I think underestimated how much consumers, at least in the US, like to have control over the buy button and have agency over the conversion process pun intended. So yeah, I don't think this is going to be a year when we see a big transformation, at least in the lower part of the funnel in terms of the role that AI agents play.

Marcus Johnson (15:30):

[00:15:30] Paul, what percentage do you think since we started? I didn't ask them, but they just started giving percentages.

Paul Verna (15:35):

Yeah, I don't know what we mean by percentages. What exactly do we mean when we say 1% or 10%?

Marcus Johnson (15:39):

Maybe share of the shopping. If 100% is I'm giving everything to AI agents and zero is none, I think-

Paul Verna (15:46):

The shopping or of the purchase, that's what I'm struggling to.

Marcus Johnson (15:50):

Oh, all of it.

Suzy Davidkhanian (15:51):

Of the dollars.

Paul Verna (15:51):

All of it.

Marcus Johnson (15:51):

Of the dollars.

Paul Verna (15:51):

The dollars.

Marcus Johnson (15:54):

Influence. Of influence in shopping under which buying is included.

Paul Verna (15:59):

So not [00:16:00] the dollars, but the influence.

Marcus Johnson (16:02):

Yeah.

Blake Droesch (16:02):

I was thinking about the influence, not the dollars.

Marcus Johnson (16:04):

Yeah, let's say influence.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:05):

Oh, I was saying about the dollars, but it doesn't matter. It's the same thing.

Paul Verna (16:08):

Boy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:10):

Well, technically-

Paul Verna (16:12):

I mean, did you say Suzy, what was-

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:13):

Not influence though, because you're saying how much of it will be fully automated, right?

Paul Verna (16:18):

Yeah.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:18):

So how much more toilet paper or toothpaste or soap am I going to buy or am I going to move the subscription on Amazon from a subscription thing to an AI tool?

Marcus Johnson (16:29):

I just said how much [00:16:30] control will shoppers give to AI agents in 2026? And then you start giving percentages and I thought, "All right, we're doing it."

Blake Droesch (16:38):

Well, then I'll change my answer to no control. Zero.

Marcus Johnson (16:42):

Zero. Zero.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:43):

I mean ...

Marcus Johnson (16:44):

Suzy?

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:46):

If we're saying that I will not have a say in it as a shopper, generally speaking, then I think it's 1%. I think there are still those cutting edge folks who are going to buy AR/VR glasses from Warby Parker and Google [00:17:00] who will be letting an AI agent make the most benign purchases, but generally speaking, we're not there yet.

Marcus Johnson (17:08):

Paul?

Paul Verna (17:09):

Well, I'll say that in terms of the actual purchase, 1%. If you go further up the funnel and you think about discovery consideration or influence, I would go up to maybe 20% because I think people are very comfortable with that part of letting an agent do their legwork for them. [00:17:30] But in terms of hitting send on a credit card purchase, yeah, 1% or below.

Marcus Johnson (17:39):

Thorough, but I gave you one point already. Suzy gets three. Blake, two, Paul one.

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:44):

Oh my God. It's like a pity three points.

Marcus Johnson (17:46):

Kind of. Moving into-

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:47):

I'll take them.

Paul Verna (17:48):

Just take them, Suzy. Just take them.

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:49):

I'll take them. I absolutely will. I'm a little sister. I know exactly what that works like.

Marcus Johnson (17:54):

No shame. Question three. We're talking about smart glasses in [00:18:00] 2026. What's going to happen?

(18:03):

Well, in 2025, lots of smart glasses announcements were made. Meta dropped its $800 Ray-Ban displays. Amazon unveiled its prototype smart glasses for its delivery drivers. And Google said right at the end of the year that it plans to launch AI smart glasses this year in 2026. Big tech seems invested, but how much should we and advertisers, people [00:18:30] who in the space paying attention to this world, how much should we be invested in smart glasses and how seriously should we be taking these endeavors. Blake?

Blake Droesch (18:40):

I would say in 2026, smart glasses let the world know who the nerds are because I think they still do not look good on anybody. Even the Ray-Ban Meta ones, I think, when you realize that someone's wearing them, [00:19:00] to me, I just automatically lose some respect personally for this individual.

(19:08):

But look, I think in all seriousness though, as a tool, I think that we're going to start to see some advancements very soon. So things for delivery drivers, just being able to enhance productivity for people at work, that's where the future really lies, I think.

(19:28):

In terms of just [00:19:30] something for the general public, I think it's going to be a hard sell still for a large percentage of consumers to want to fork over their hard-earned money for a very expensive pair of glasses that are still kind of a novelty.

Marcus Johnson (19:50):

For folks who aren't watching, just listening in, when Blake was making his disparaging comments, Paul slowly took off his glasses and [00:20:00] threw them across the room.

(20:02):

Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (20:04):

So I ...

Marcus Johnson (20:05):

No, Paul. Sorry.

Suzy Davidkhanian (20:07):

That's okay.

Marcus Johnson (20:08):

It's Paul's turn. I'm so sorry.

Suzy Davidkhanian (20:10):

Almost gave away the secret sauce. Phew.

Marcus Johnson (20:14):

Paul showing us. So for listeners-

Suzy Davidkhanian (20:17):

With the as yet uninstalled sunglass attachment here.

Marcus Johnson (20:23):

I was kidding before, but Paul has some. He has a box of them. Paul, what do [00:20:30] you think?

Paul Verna (20:30):

Not for the podcast, just for you guys to know, I would never, ever spend 800 bucks on those things, but they were actually a gift at the Good Apple Digital AP that I did a few months ago. They were in our gift bag.

Blake Droesch (20:47):

That's a pretty good gift. Yeah, that's very cool.

Paul Verna (20:49):

It is. It's an amazing gift. But it was two months ago, and I still haven't opened them. Just saying. But now, anyway, let's get back to business here.

(20:58):

In 2026, smart [00:21:00] glasses let the world know they were ready for prime time. I disagree with Blake. I think this is the moment when this starts crossing into the mainstream. People with either long memories or absolutely nothing better to do with their time might remember that I pontificated on this show about how AR and VR were just not going to get anywhere if you have to wear these massive goggles. But I think the glasses are definitely a step in the right [00:21:30] direction. And it's also worth noting that this is basically the second wave of this.

(21:35):

So back in 2016, and if you take a moment to look at your screen, here's a picture of Danny Caridi, AKA the godfather of Behind the Numbers, sporting Snap lenses at our holiday party. So that was nine years ago. And at the time, those went nowhere, Snap shut it down. I think this is the second [00:22:00] wave where it actually starts becoming real. And Meta has a commanding share of the market now that's going to change as others introduce this technology.

Blake Droesch (22:12):

And for the record, even after seeing this photo, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for Daniel.

Marcus Johnson (22:19):

He's the only person who can pull these off. Danny Caridi on our production crew has an answer to every question you ask him. It's quite unbelievable. Also helped start this very podcast. [00:22:30] So shout out to Danny.

(22:32):

Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (22:33):

So I think it's the year of a lot of buzz still, but nothing material in that there was a lot of news. We're constantly hearing about all the different partnerships. I think it helps that Google went with Warby Parker, which is a much more affordable brand image versus a lot of other pairings. I think brands that are very tech-forward, your question was, should brands be investing in this? I think very tech-forward brands who have niche audiences of people who like to try, [00:23:00] technology should start dabbling in it, doing some piloting, A/B testing, but I don't think we should take it very seriously. It makes me think of Web3, which I was all in on. I still am. I just think '26 is too early for it. Wearable category is moving in the right direction, but I don't think that there are enough use cases to prove that the price tag is worth it.

Marcus Johnson (23:21):

Even though Paul did bring a visual aid of Danny wearing the glasses, which we threw up on the screen, just the one point. Blake has two. Suzy with three. [00:23:30] I like the Warby Parker comment.

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:33):

What?

Marcus Johnson (23:33):

I think that was good analysis.

(23:34):

So after the second round, two gone, one to go, Blake is in the lead with eight. Paul and Suzy tied with-

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:42):

Wait. What kind of math was that?

Marcus Johnson (23:44):

Seven. What?

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:45):

Is that real math?

Marcus Johnson (23:47):

Yes, it's real.

Blake Droesch (23:48):

I've been in the middle every time, so I've still accumulated the points. I have ...

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:51):

Two, four, six.

Marcus Johnson (23:54):

Blake picked up three, then two.

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:56):

Seven. Blake has seven.

Marcus Johnson (23:57):

Suzy a one, three, three. Paul a two, [00:24:00] one, one.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:01):

Seven. Two.

Blake Droesch (24:02):

It's all above the board here on Behind the Numbers.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:04):

Four.

Blake Droesch (24:04):

Yes.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:04):

No, aren't we counting the other points too? Paul has three plus, two plus-

Marcus Johnson (24:11):

Sorry, listeners. Just hold on a second while Suzy counts the scores for us again for the first two rounds. In your own time, Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:16):

Okay, fine. It's fine. I'll have to trust the system.

Marcus Johnson (24:19):

Yeah. The pretty simple Excel formula I've got here working it all out for me. Thank goodness.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:24):

I'm just saying the math wasn't mathing for me. Still not mathing, but I'm going to let it go. It's fine.

Marcus Johnson (24:29):

Thank [00:24:30] goodness. All right, listeners, we can move on with our lives now. Suzy's happy.

(24:35):

Okay. After two rounds, Blake, like I said, is ahead with eight, Suzy and Paul tied with seven. So all to play for as we move into round three, cleverly named History in the Making.

(24:54):

In this multiple choice round, we dip into our forecasts and identify some big milestones we expect [00:25:00] to happen in 2026. So back to Slack. Question one.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:06):

This is where I lose. I don't need to do the math.

Marcus Johnson (25:10):

More strong now?

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:11):

I'm going to lose. I don't do well in multiple choice.

Marcus Johnson (25:14):

Well, with that attitude, you won't.

(25:17):

Question one. Retail social commerce sales will cross the 100 ... I've put $100 mark, but probably $100 billion mark in 2026. But what share of Americans will be social buyers [00:25:30] in 2026? Definition, someone who buys on social platforms at least once a year. A) 30%, B) 40%, C) 50%.

(25:40):

30%, 40% or 50% for the share of Americans that will be social buyers this year. Quicker, folks.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:49):

Yeah, 'cause they're looking on the whole.

Marcus Johnson (25:50):

Have you guys Googling the answer? You took the longest. Okay?

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:53):

I did?

Marcus Johnson (25:54):

Yes, you did.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:54):

Oh, it's 'cause I went to text accidentally. Sorry about that.

Marcus Johnson (25:58):

The correct answer is? [00:26:00] Paul put 40, but I asked him to put letters, but he decided to put the number, which is still correct. 40%.

Paul Verna (26:07):

Oh sorry, sorry.

Marcus Johnson (26:07):

Paul. Blake also got 40. Suzy said that's it. Yeah. So a point for Paul, one for Blake, Suzy, big nice zero.

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:18):

Another three.

Paul Verna (26:19):

Do I get an extra point for not being on the retail e-commerce team?

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:23):

No, 'cause you have social commerce.

Paul Verna (26:25):

Yeah.

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:26):

Nice try.

Marcus Johnson (26:27):

Suzy is head of our breakdown desk. She'll get negative [00:26:30] five.

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:30):

But we don't cover social. It's Minda and Max.

Marcus Johnson (26:34):

Social commerce? You're doing an episode on social commerce later this month, so don't try it, with Minda and Corina-

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:41):

Social commerce is critical.

Marcus Johnson (26:43):

Which I will be hosting. Blake, if you're free, I wouldn't mind summing you in for that one too.

Blake Droesch (26:48):

Unfortunately, I'm busy that day.

Marcus Johnson (26:50):

Oh, you think-

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:50):

[inaudible 00:26:51]

Paul Verna (26:51):

Laundry.

Marcus Johnson (26:53):

Fine, I'll do it.

(26:55):

Question two. For the first time ever, average daily time spent watching TV across all [00:27:00] ages will fall to under two hours. Less than two hours of TV time being watched. Traditional TV time per day for the first time ever. An hour and 58 minutes is going to fall to in 2026. But what share of the US ad pie will go to traditional TV spending? What share of the US ad pie will go to traditional TV spending in 2026, 15%, 11% or 8%. A) 15, B) 11, C) 8.

Suzy Davidkhanian (27:30):

[00:27:30] I don't know these ones.

Marcus Johnson (27:34):

Answers are in. Blake said A, and Paul and Suzy said B, which is correct, 11%. So Paul gets one.

Suzy Davidkhanian (27:44):

Paul is winning.

Marcus Johnson (27:44):

Suzy gets one. Blake gets nothing. But-

Suzy Davidkhanian (27:49):

Are Blake and I tied now?

Marcus Johnson (27:51):

All comes down to the last question. And the last question you'll be surprised to learn is worth two points.

Suzy Davidkhanian (27:58):

Wait, what's the score right now?

Marcus Johnson (28:00):

[00:28:00] Paul and Blake are tied on nine. Suzy, you have eight. So you can-

Suzy Davidkhanian (28:07):

Oh, my God, I could win-

Marcus Johnson (28:08):

... win it all if they get it wrong. If they both get it right, don't worry. Of course I have a tie breaker. Question three, the number of Gen Z GenAI users will overtake that of millennials. Number of Gen Z folks using GenAI will overtake that of Millennials, but only slightly this year in 2026. But what share of the overall US population [00:28:30] will use GenAI once a month in 2026? 39% is A, 43% is B, and 47% is C.

Blake Droesch (28:40):

Can you say those one more time?

Marcus Johnson (28:43):

39, 43, or 47% of the overall US population-

Suzy Davidkhanian (28:47):

And what are they doing with AI? Anything?

Marcus Johnson (28:49):

Using anything.

Paul Verna (28:51):

Once a month, using an LLM once a month. Is that all right?

Marcus Johnson (28:56):

Yep. The answer is ... I can't believe you [00:29:00] all said C. 39%, which is A. That's what our forecast team thinks. I mean, those shares are still pretty close, so you weren't way off. But yeah, 39% of folks will use it once a month, which is kind of what our ... So our head of AI, principal AI analyst, Nate Elliott, was saying on a recent episode that it seems like everyone's using it to folks in our world, but there are a lot of folks who [00:29:30] haven't even heard of it and even less folks that feel the need to use it once a month. So it is, yeah, a surprising number, but it will continue to climb and we'll get close to that 47% in a couple of years. So we went not too far off. But that means ... Check the scores.

Suzy Davidkhanian (29:46):

I'm in second.

Marcus Johnson (29:48):

Last place. Paul and Blake-

Suzy Davidkhanian (29:49):

No, I'm second-

Marcus Johnson (29:50):

... tied with nine, Suzy with eight. So Suzy, you have definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely lost. But Paul and Blake, move on to the [00:30:00] finals, the final elimination round. And I have two questions for you. Would you prefer sport or history?

Suzy Davidkhanian (30:11):

Oh, let's do sports.

Blake Droesch (30:12):

I'll defer to Paul.

Paul Verna (30:15):

I'll do history.

Blake Droesch (30:15):

Wait. Hang on. What kind of sport? Real sports or soccer?

Marcus Johnson (30:18):

No, I'm not telling you. You don't get specific. The categories are sport or history.

Paul Verna (30:22):

I'm going with history.

Blake Droesch (30:25):

All right, let's go history.

Paul Verna (30:25):

You deferred to me, Blake, let's do history.

Marcus Johnson (30:28):

Okay.

Paul Verna (30:28):

I have the same problem you do, Blake. [00:30:30] I know a lot about some sports, but nothing about many others.

Blake Droesch (30:34):

Exactly. Unfortunately, I'm that same way with history, but let's roll the dice.

Paul Verna (30:38):

I am too, actually.

Marcus Johnson (30:39):

Closest wins. So get ready. Fingers on keyboards. In what year? Suzy, you can play along for fun if you want.

Suzy Davidkhanian (30:47):

No, that's fine.

Marcus Johnson (30:48):

Okay. The question is, in what year was the Colosseum completed? You have three seconds to answer. In what year was the Colosseum completed?

Paul Verna (31:00):

[00:31:00] Is this multiple choice or?

Marcus Johnson (31:02):

Nope. Closest wins.

(31:10):

Gentlemen. Okay. Both very close. Blake said 200 BC. Paul said 47 BC. Later than you might've thought. 80 AD. 80 AD. It was started in 72 AD, but completed in [00:31:30] 80. So you guys weren't far off. I probably would've said somewhere in the 1500s. So you guys did pretty well. But that makes Paul this episode's winner. Congratulations to Paul.

Paul Verna (31:44):

I have to admit, I'm embarrassed that I didn't get that right because I was around when it happened, so I should have known.

Suzy Davidkhanian (31:50):

And still you remember grade school homework. It's fascinating.

Paul Verna (31:55):

Yes, I do.

Suzy Davidkhanian (31:56):

Amazing.

Paul Verna (31:57):

Grade school from 2000 years ago.

Marcus Johnson (32:00):

[00:32:00] Well, congratulations to Paul. He is today's this episode's winner of the big 2026 quiz. Thank you so much to everybody for participating. That's all we have time for for today's episode, thanking the contestants in turn. Thank you first in third place to be kind to her, Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:19):

Thanks for having me.

Marcus Johnson (32:20):

In an impressive second, Blake.

Blake Droesch (32:24):

Thanks, Marcus. Happy New Year, everyone.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:26):

Impressive second.

Marcus Johnson (32:27):

And a fantabulous first place, [00:32:30] Paul Verna.

Paul Verna (32:32):

I love 2026 already.

Marcus Johnson (32:33):

And a huge thank you to the production crew, of course. A special thank you to Danny Caridi who was featured in this episode. You saw his face on the screen wearing the glasses, and also, as I mentioned, someone who helped start this great podcast. So huge thank you to him and the whole production crew. Thanks to everyone for listening into Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast. Please do subscribe, follow, and leave a rating and review, if you can, make it your new year's resolution perhaps. We'll be back on Monday talking about all things digital advertising trends to watch [00:33:00] in 2026 Bake Off style, complete ripoff. We have no shame.