Consumer attention is fragmented across multiple platforms and making informed advertising decisions is more critical—and complex—than ever. With Nielsen Ad Intel, you can streamline your strategy, minimize wasted spend, and identify opportunities to differentiate your brand, empowering you to stay ahead in an ever-changing market. Discover more today. www.nielsen.com

Marcus Johnson (00:00):

Your audience is seeing ads everywhere, even on the screens you'd least expect. Nielsen AdIntel helps you see the whole picture. Who doesn't want the whole picture? Nobody. Okay. That's the answer. Everyone wants it. From creative trends to ad spend and media across all screens. Maximize every media dollar today with Nielsen AdIntel. Hey gang. It's Friday, September 26th. Paul, Susie, Oscar, and listeners, welcome to Behind the Numbers an eMarketer video podcast, made possible by Nielsen. I am Marcus, and joining me for today, we have three people. Let's meet them. We start with our VP of Content. Living in Main, it's Paul Verna.

Paul Verna (00:38):

Always a pleasure.

Marcus Johnson (00:39):

Yes, sir. Thanks for being here. We're also joined by another one of our vice presidents of content, heads up our retail desk living in New York. Suzy Davidkhanian.

Suzy Davidkhanian (00:47):

Thanks for having me back.

Marcus Johnson (00:48):

Absolutely. And of course, our senior director of forecasting also living in NY, Oscar Orozco.

Oscar Orozco (00:54):

That's right. Happy to be here, Marcus. It's been a while.

Marcus Johnson (00:56):

Yes, sir.

Oscar Orozco (00:57):

It's been a while.

Marcus Johnson (00:58):

Indeed. Good to have you too. Today's fact. The greatest one day temperature change on record. So do you want to take a guess? You can give me Fahrenheit or Celsius, Susie. Or maybe Oscar.

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:17):

Thank you.

Marcus Johnson (01:20):

You know when you go out and you look at the weather and it's like, "Okay, it's going to be 60 in the morning." And it gets up to like 80, 90. That would obviously be a 20, 30 degree change. What do you think is the greatest one on record?

Oscar Orozco (01:31):

Anywhere in the world?

Marcus Johnson (01:33):

Yes.

Oscar Orozco (01:35):

I would say 80 Fahrenheit.

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:36):

20 [inaudible 00:01:38].

Oscar Orozco (01:38):

80 Fahrenheit swing. Susie's gone... You said 20?

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:41):

20 Celsius.

Marcus Johnson (01:42):

Oh, 20 Celsius. Okay.

Paul Verna (01:45):

Get out your calculators.

Marcus Johnson (01:47):

Yeah, I know. What would that be 40 to-

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:51):

Plus 30. 70. I guess it's about the same as...

Marcus Johnson (01:54):

Yeah, well-

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:56):

Just a bit under 80.

Oscar Orozco (01:57):

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson (01:58):

Okay. Okay. And Paul?

Paul Verna (02:01):

73 Fahrenheit.

Marcus Johnson (02:02):

73 degrees Fahrenheit.

Suzy Davidkhanian (02:03):

Oh, shoot. Then I'm going to do the math on my 20. Everything's a competition.

Marcus Johnson (02:09):

You're all way too low. When you're involved, Susie. You're way too low. So according to Guinness World Records greatest temperature variation in a single location in 24 hour period was actually right here in the US in Loma Montana in 1972. Over the course of a day, the town went from negative 54 Fahrenheit at 9 AM. January 14th to 49 Fahrenheit plus 49 by 8 AM. the following day for our listeners across the pond, that's negative 48 Celsius to plus nine Celsius in 24 hours. So that's a near 60 Celsius swing or an over 100 Fahrenheit swing in a single day.

Oscar Orozco (02:48):

Crazy. Could you imagine the wardrobes [inaudible 00:02:54]. Everything from flip-flops to mittens. Crazy.

Marcus Johnson (02:57):

Should I just go? Chinook wind is responsible because it's a warm dry downslope winds from the Western North America. It rapidly melts snow. Folks call them snow eaters. And this extreme condition causes the drastic temperature increases and dry conditions. Anyway, today's real topic, we make some very specific but highly unlikely predictions for the next six months. Shark Tank style part two. Okay, here's how this episode works. Paul goes first, you get 60 seconds to pitch a very specific but highly unlikely prediction he thinks will come true in the next six months. So Q4 of this year, Q1 of next year. Then me, Susie, Oscar, and everyone listening decide if we are going to "invest" in or believe in basically his prediction. Susie goes next, et cetera. Paul, what'd you have for us?

Paul Verna (03:50):

Well, as usual, I'm going to throw things off before I even start and ask if I think the prediction is going to come true. How is it highly unlikely?

Marcus Johnson (03:59):

The rest of us-

Paul Verna (04:00):

Is that a-

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:00):

Well, this goes back to my point, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson (04:03):

Here we go. Susie, you'll be shocked to learn, had an issue with how the episode goes. Go on, Susie, tell me.

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:09):

My issue is that I picked the most random thought-provoking, most likely not going to happen, and some of my colleagues pick things that are in the news. So that's the way I went this time around so I could win.

Marcus Johnson (04:23):

Not the brief.

Paul Verna (04:24):

Always about winning.

Marcus Johnson (04:25):

The peak behind the curtain, listeners, is Susie for 45 minutes was just putting all of the analysts on blast because she said that their predictions were terrible and-

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:34):

No, they were amazing. They were too close to reality.

Marcus Johnson (04:37):

She sent me an email. It was seven pages.

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:39):

It was a letter. Marcus, what are you talking about in an email?

Marcus Johnson (04:43):

How did you get my address, by the way?

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:46):

It was a cursive letter, because I'm an analyst.

Marcus Johnson (04:49):

So it's very specific. So it's more interesting and it's highly unlikely because the more specific you get, the less likely it is to be. Susie has leaned very heavily into the very unlikely. Paul is also doing something different as well. Paul, what are you up to?

Paul Verna (05:03):

Well, I think that-

Marcus Johnson (05:06):

You believe in it very strongly, it sounds like.

Paul Verna (05:08):

I do. I do. I believe that the temperature in the room is about to drop by about 100 degrees because I'm going to throw cold water on this whole thing.

Oscar Orozco (05:20):

Bring it, bring it.

Marcus Johnson (05:21):

All right, here we go. Susie's [inaudible 00:05:23].

Paul Verna (05:22):

All right, so my real prediction is a major US organization like a CNBC or a CNN will be acquired by a billionaire, and we all know about billionaires who have recently or maybe not so recently, bought big media properties. And others who have owned them for a long time.

Marcus Johnson (05:43):

Yep. So, well, Paul's talking about, obviously you were saying to me, Paul, before the episode, Amazon's Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Elon Musk owns Twitter or X. Michael Bloomberg, that one's obvious. And then David Ellison, Larry's son, Larry being the co-founder of Oracle, owns Paramount Skydance. That's Paramount Pictures, CBS, Nickelodeon, MTV, [inaudible 00:06:04], et cetera. Why?

Paul Verna (06:06):

Well, I think there are a couple of forces at play here. One is that the traditional news media business is under quite a bit of stress. It has been for a long time, and I think AI is taking things even further down a path that news publishers are having a hard time dealing with, and that is basically a lot of traffic circumventing those media properties. The business was already in a hard place in the sense that traditional TV networks, traditional media networks, or the owners of those networks have already been spitting them off in part of a breakup of their portfolio into streaming and linear TVs. So I think this is an extension of that. So I think with those trends in place, I think the writing is on the wall for something like this to happen in the relative near future.

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:06):

And you think the properties at most, I don't know if risk is the right word, but that are most likely to be purchased, are CNN and CNBC?

Paul Verna (07:16):

Those are the ones that rise to the top for me. But again, they're more potential candidates.

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:27):

Without getting political in any way, shape or form. I feel like some of the more left media might have a tough time getting sold right now. And so even if they're not doing well, I don't know if someone would be willing to risk buying them and if those properties would be able to authentically lean so far over. They're all trying to be more in the middle now it feels like. But will they be able to lean even further over?

Paul Verna (08:04):

Yeah. I think the same forces that make things difficult for their businesses when it comes to left-leaning outlets probably make them more targets for acquisition, because I think someone who may be willing to play the long game might say, "Okay, these are recognizable brands that prior to the current moment that we're living in had a lot of appeal and maybe still do in some future. So I think I see the point. I think, look, any of these businesses are going to be a tough sell in the sense that none of them scream out, "Hey, let's get rich quick." This is going to be a long game. But I think in the spirit of consolidation, which is what typically tends to happen when industries are disrupted to this point, I think picking up one of these brands, particularly like I was saying about maybe Jeff Bezos, if he wants to expand his portfolio into he's got the Washington Post, but if he wants to expand his news portfolio into something more in streaming media, then CNBC might make perfect sense.

Oscar Orozco (09:29):

Yeah, I was thinking what about from the perspective of the American consumer? What would it mean for them? That's a heavy question, but would it be a good thing or a bad thing?

Marcus Johnson (09:41):

That's a good point.

Paul Verna (09:43):

Yeah, I think the consumer, the media consumption and media itself, they have splintered to where there's no middle ground anymore. So I think it's really going to come down to the audiences for those particular networks and being able to serve them as opposed to anybody thinking that, "Oh, if I acquire CNN, I'm going to get to a place where we're going to be able to grow the audience outside of what the core audience is today."

Marcus Johnson (10:19):

Yeah, so thinking-

Paul Verna (10:20):

It's more about super serving the audiences that have been carved out.

Marcus Johnson (10:27):

The very strong brands and you're getting a very dedicated audience with that brand if you were to buy them. We mentioned a bunch of folks who didn't have media companies and then got into them for the first time, to what you were saying just now, Paul, Jeff Bezos maybe buying one of these, he already has Washington Post. I wonder if it's going to be someone who already has a media company, maybe has more experience in media and being able to do something different with the brand, with the company than someone who's a first time buyer. "I just have lots of money. I want to keep the brand alive."

Paul Verna (11:01):

It's possible. There's a lot of talk around a Paramount/Skydance and Warner Brothers discovery merger, which would involve CNN. So I think all options are on the table, but because that particular merger would be a merger of two companies that are weaker than their competitors, it's also conceivable that there's not a ton of value for either of those companies, say for Paramount to pick up a CNN as it would be for somebody with very deep pockets to just simply buy it outright and want to shape it in his or her image.

Marcus Johnson (11:45):

I'm half in, because Susie invented that for no good reason a few years ago. Susie.

Suzy Davidkhanian (11:52):

I'm regretfully not even half, only because it's like the Shark Tank mentality. If I'm not going to be able to make money on it right now, which it doesn't feel like it's a right now kind of thing, it's a much longer term proposition and I don't see it happening anytime really soon. Unless it's someone like a Bloomberg who buys something and tax it onto what they already have. But even then, I think it's too hard,. It's too messy. Billionaires like easy money.

Marcus Johnson (12:24):

That's often the hurdle is the timing of it, because we're saying this is going to come true in the next six months. So on that Susie's out. Oscar.

Oscar Orozco (12:32):

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum there. I'm buying this. While I do see what Susie's saying about what would be the immediate benefit from a revenue standpoint, I think if what Paul's saying that it's individuals who have already purchased some sort of media property before, I feel like it's likelier that it would be one of these, whether it's a Michael Bloomberg or Elon Musk, and I think they'd know how to flip things. It wouldn't be an immediate six months sort of thing, but I do think that in the long term it would be meaningful for them and their existing properties. I could see it happening. I think it's feasible and especially as we move into midterm elections next year. It would make sense early in 2026.

Marcus Johnson (13:22):

Yeah. All right. That's one and a half points out of the possible three of investment. Not a bad start. Susie, what you have for us?

Suzy Davidkhanian (13:28):

Okay, so mine is, are you ready? It's going to happen. I know it. So I am finally playing by the rules. I think Pepsi is going to peel off the beverage component of their business, and like Kraft Heinz who just split up, they're going to do the same. And I have lots of reasons why I believe this to be true. One is that they just announced that they're innovating cola for the first time in 20 years with a probiotic soda. Did you guys know that Pepsi is actually now third in line in the cola war?

(14:01):

It's Coke, Dr. Pepper and Pepsi. So they need to infuse innovation. They bought Poppy, I don't know if you guys knew that, a couple years ago. They also bought this drink called Rockstar, which is similar to a Red Bull that is not doing well that they've had to take markdowns and it's cost them a whole lot of money. So I think in some ways the beverage business, they're trying to show that they're innovating, but it's not going well. Everybody's moved into health and wellness. Pepsi, Coke, sodas have not necessarily moved in that way in the right way. It's impacting their sales, but their snack business, as Paul would attest, is doing quite well. They have some really big brands and these are higher margin, there's more growth, and they're like, go with me on this one, small luxuries that maybe you're not going to go to private label to buy like you would a Coke.

Marcus Johnson (14:58):

So I do believe that this could happen because Reuters was noting Elliott Management, which has a 4 billion stake in PepsiCo, which is a very small share, but apparently is still a big share.

Suzy Davidkhanian (15:09):

2%.

Marcus Johnson (15:10):

Exactly, which is still a big investor. They called for a turnaround in the beverage and snack giant positioning, sorry, pointing out the stock performance has been lagging behind Coca-Cola. They say in the past five years, over the last two years, PepsiCo shares are down 15% over that time period. Coca-Cola is up 15%, the S&P is up over 40. So I could see the urgency here.

Suzy Davidkhanian (15:35):

I think the interesting thing about them is that they actually want to do some different type of restructuring that I'm suggesting. They're talking about the bottling and a few other sort of components of the Pepsi business, whereas I think that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting they need to have modular businesses that are structured just Cokes or sodas or drinks, beverages versus just snacks. Because taking away distribution from the Coke business or the Pepsi business, whatever, in my world, Coke is everything. It's like Kleenex or Googling. So I mean Pepsi in this instance sodas, but I think it's really critical to think about it as a complete modular restructuring and not removing components, which is what that company wants to do. They are just worried about short as they should. That's their job. They're worried about short-term gain from a shareholder perspective, but I think it's too short-sighted to do it the way they're talking about.

Paul Verna (16:30):

So I have two questions that will help me decide if I'm in or out. The first question is how does separating those two businesses help Pepsi solve its problems? Because you're talking about Pepsi stock price being down, Coca-Cola is being up, but would separating those two businesses have anything to do with getting Pepsi to where they need to go? And I'm asking it because I don't really know that business very well. And I guess the other question I have is, or maybe it's more of a comment, but the Kraft Heinz deal was basically a merger that didn't work. And it joins a very long list of companies that tried to merge. And because of culture, because of lack of business alignment or whatever, it didn't work. But with Pepsi, we're talking about a company that was built up over many, many years. So it wasn't really like joining two companies and now decoupling them. So I'm wondering if that comparison makes sense or if it would just be coincidental if Pepsi does this.

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:41):

This. So Pepsi did buy Quaker and Frito-Lay just didn't have a hybrid name and it's over the years. It's just like Heinz-Kraft bought the company and kept the name together because there was so much brand power in each of the names. Pepsi went a different route. So again, splitting up the snack powerhouse, which everybody knows and loves, and is still buying, even though that doesn't technically fall into health and wellness. I think that part of the Pepsi Inc, let's call it, business, although it's not technically called Pepsi Inc, but you know what I mean, the umbrella business.

(18:15):

Is doing really well and is helping the lagging part of the business. If they unstructure and have two separate the beverage business and the snack business, they're going to be able to infuse a little bit more time and energy into innovation for the cola business. And that's going to help give shareholder value. As shareholders, I think you will get more value. And if not, you can opt out of the Pepsi Cola business in an easier way than right now you believe in the snack business, but by default you also have to absorb the drag that is Cola's. So it is definitely different in terms of what the investor is asking for. And they're not the only ones. Kellogg's also just unsplit and then Ferraro bought the cereal business. This is what was in Vogue, which was like all the mergers and acquisitions is now we're seeing sometimes you can be too big and fail. And the pockets of growth don't shine when they have to help the lagging businesses. And so there's a lot of moving parts happening now in CPG.

Oscar Orozco (19:21):

So Susie, my question is about private label. Wouldn't the snacks business be more susceptible to competition from private label than the beverage piece or has that changed? Because again, I would think that would be a major threat to Pepsi. And so it surprises me that the snacks business is doing as well, considering we've continuously seen the shift to private label. So that's my question.

Suzy Davidkhanian (19:46):

I think it's a really good one. I think it's a consumer perception. Somehow Doritos or other Frito-Lay snacks seem to be so specific in their formulation and it does make a difference. Versus Colas, a lot of people are buying private label colas and also a lot of people are just not buying Colas anymore. They're buying adjacent beverages. And so this will give Pepsi the room to try and innovate in the beverage category.

Marcus Johnson (20:15):

Yeah. All right. I'm half in. I was not in at all when I initially heard your prediction, but you've convinced me. I think this is a clever strategy,

Paul Verna (20:25):

Paul. I think I'm in. I didn't think I could envision a world where I could no longer enjoy my Doritos with Mountain Dew, but I have to say I got used to eating cheeseburgers with Velveeta on them and not putting Heinz ketchup on them. And I actually got used to having Nutella with my cornflakes, which I never thought I would do.

Oscar Orozco (20:48):

Oh. He's back. Oh yeah.

Paul Verna (20:49):

I think if I survive those two cataclysms, I'm ready for this one. So I'm in.

Marcus Johnson (20:55):

[inaudible 00:20:56] Jesus. Oscar.

Oscar Orozco (20:58):

I'm half in, I mean I think the private label question Susie took some of my doubts away, but I'm still unsure about the spin-off. You would think they'd potentially have to sell it to go private or sell it to a competitor or something like that. I don't know if just spinning it and refocusing efforts would change their long-term outlook. But you have me half there.

Paul Verna (21:23):

What if they bundled it with a media company?

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:25):

Right. Then I think CNN would go right away with Doritos. Right.

Marcus Johnson (21:31):

Very nice.

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:31):

Who has Orville Popcorn? Who owns that brand? Who CNN should be getting with.

Marcus Johnson (21:38):

You eat popcorn when you're watching your News.

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:41):

Yeah.

Paul Verna (21:41):

You do now? [inaudible 00:21:42].

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:41):

Well I don't really watch a lot of news.

Marcus Johnson (21:42):

It was pretty gripping. All right, that makes sense.

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:48):

That was funny.

Marcus Johnson (21:50):

Don't be too surprised. Thank you very much. Half a point from me, half from Oscar, one from Paul gives you two total of a possible three. So Oscar is going to try and knock Susie off the top spot perch with his prediction. What do you have?

Oscar Orozco (22:03):

What I think is marketers have long seen the connected vehicle, connected cars as the next frontier. And I believe we are, within the next six months, are going to see enough partnerships and movement in that space where it will happen. In other words, we have seen recently how the CTV has redefined media. And I believe vehicles, cars are that next major ad channel that we'll start hearing more about. That's my pitch. That's my prediction.

Marcus Johnson (22:36):

So I like this one. And one of the reasons I like it is because Oscar of your team's forecasts connected car drivers.

Oscar Orozco (22:46):

That's right.

Marcus Johnson (22:46):

There are way more than I thought. So as you can see from this chart on the screen, 165 million folks already drive a connected car. That's 58% of Americans. And we should say Oscar, so there's a very long definition that we have, but the short rebate version is connected cars to find the vehicles that contain built-in hardware, my Audi AcuraLink or external devices, head units from Alpine that connect 3G, 4G, 5G. And it includes things like CarPlay, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto.

Oscar Orozco (23:19):

Exactly. So the embedded systems and the tether. Exactly.

Marcus Johnson (23:22):

Yes, exactly, exactly. So the services, navigation, music, diagnostics, things like that. So a lot of folks who are there and are ready for the taking so to speak, in terms of ads.

Oscar Orozco (23:33):

Exactly. And I would add, and this is very timely of course, we're actually just about to publish the update to this forecast. And spoiler alert, very close, but our numbers are forecasts are even higher. So you'll see that soon enough in the next couple of weeks. I did a little bit of digging and when you look at just the amount of time, and this is according to census data, that people spend in their cars just commuting to work, the 2023 data showed that people are spending about close to 54 minutes a day driving to and from work, and then consider being in the car for other reasons, going shopping or going to run errands, whatever. When we look at it from a time spent angle, this is more time per day than people spend on their tablets, on their laptops.

(24:28):

It's close to the CTV number we're seeing now, so it's not fleshed out. It's a complex situation there between the OEMs, the automakers, the telematics companies, tech companies, et cetera. But I think that we're going to see some sort of synergy there soon. And this new era of commerce media, just like an auto commerce media, will come together. And it'll be huge for marketers. Data weaved together that has never been available to marketers before.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:04):

Is the prediction that there'll be touchable on the screen and it'll be shoppable, it'll actually be shoppable or is it that I'm making up, because I didn't hear you say these things.

Oscar Orozco (25:14):

[inaudible 00:25:15].

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:14):

But Amazon will work with Tesla, like Amazon and Netflix are working together now. Remind me what the actual-

Oscar Orozco (25:23):

This is a good question. I anticipated this.

Marcus Johnson (25:27):

It's not a good question. You said this already, Oscar. I'm so sorry you're having to repeat yourself.

Oscar Orozco (25:29):

To be more specific. I mean we're talking about targeted ads here that are specifically catered to the driver but also added layers of being able to mix, for example, what people are searching for online on their devices at home, in the car, their shopping carts, all other data, layering that on top and on top of one another to provide something that doesn't exist yet. And I think, yes, there are some ads in cars. You see it with ride-sharing vehicles, you'll see it within apps that are tethered in cars and things like that. But increasingly so, even when you think of it from the in-vehicle, it would be a lot in these embedded systems. Again, it's providing this data to marketers to target these consumers. Not necessarily when they're just in the car, but I'm also thinking that a lot of this will come when the driver is in the car or passengers as well.

Marcus Johnson (26:35):

And knowing, I guess I'm thinking of Marcus I can see from your credit card data that you go to diners a lot, you're driving past a diner or you will be driving past a diner in 10 minutes. There's the ad, it comes at the right moment to the right person.

Oscar Orozco (26:47):

Exactly.

Marcus Johnson (26:47):

Much more specific.

Oscar Orozco (26:50):

Saying, exactly, you like this specific coffee QSR. There's one around the corner that you could go to, even piling on AR VR in terms of coupons on the screen that will lead the driver to a location of a business. There's just so many different types of ad products that I've been envisioning, I think we're going to start seeing more and more of this in the next six months.

Paul Verna (27:26):

My hesitation is just about, it seems like a marketer's dream, but maybe a consumer's nightmare, to be bombarded with even more ads that are using data that's obviously from their driving behavior, which I think a lot of people regard as maybe a little more private.

Oscar Orozco (27:47):

Private.

Paul Verna (27:48):

So I think there's a downside, but I mean I guess you could say that about all digital advertising, right? There's always a pendulum between convenience and relevance and creepiness. So I think this would have to thread the needles.

Oscar Orozco (28:04):

For sure. There are definitely some regulatory issues, but have to be opt-ins by the consumers themselves. But as you said, with everything digital advertising related 10 years ago, we wouldn't have envisioned some of the targeted ads that the consumers that we now see that we're comfortable with and okay with. And I expect that would be the case here. It starts small but eventually become much bigger and much more prominent in people's lives as they're in the car.

Suzy Davidkhanian (28:34):

I do think most people who have Waze or Google Map on their screen, typically when the thing that says there's a police officer or there's a light or whatever, most people just exit out of that and move on with their life. I almost feel like for this to really work, there would have to be a voice component that it's like, "Oh, you're about to drive by the Starbucks and you have $10 left in your wallet of stable coins or 10 stable coin units or whatever those are called." So please, why don't you go stop here now. It's on sale because of dynamic pricing.

Marcus Johnson (29:06):

Susie's last prediction for listeners who have no idea what she's talking about is that Starbucks would release its own stable coin. That's why she's worked down into the conversation.

Oscar Orozco (29:14):

Has to bring it up again. Yeah, no and that's-

Suzy Davidkhanian (29:18):

It got me on the banking show. Just saying.

Marcus Johnson (29:21):

We needed an analyst. Susie was the only one who was free. She did the other show.

Suzy Davidkhanian (29:24):

We were four.

Marcus Johnson (29:25):

Sorry, Oscar.

Oscar Orozco (29:26):

No, no. And that's a good point. I think one of the main drivers of connected vehicle use is actually the voice assistants. So I do feel that that's a big component of how people are using these embedded systems, even the Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. So absolutely, even if it's a voice that is telling the driver, look down at your screen now, there's something at this light while you're stopped at this light is something that you might want to look at. But absolutely [inaudible 00:29:58] be important.

Marcus Johnson (29:58):

Yeah, 10 minutes a day people will spend at stoplights, I believe. I think it was one of my facts in the last year or two, so it's a lot of time just [inaudible 00:30:07]. Most people pull out their phones anyway at those moments. If they could maybe not and have the things appear on the screen or keeping their hands free, that would probably be more ideal. I think the timing is tough because six months, but the reason I'm going to say half in and not out is because something that Jacob Bourne was saying.

(30:23):

So he's one of our technology analysts. And just pointing to the fact that drivers are extremely present. Research from audio media firm Audacy showing that 56% of drivers looked up brands after hearing radio ads. 49% made purchases after podcast ads and over 45% of connected car drivers visited the store after hearing audio ads. He says the car's captive environment combined with AI-powered contextual awareness of location, time and driving patterns create significant opportunities for precise messaging. So for that reason, I'm half in.

Oscar Orozco (31:00):

Half in.

Marcus Johnson (31:00):

I've been half in on all of them. I have some real commitment issues I need to work through. Susie, are you in?

Suzy Davidkhanian (31:04):

I am also half in, because I think to Paul's point, it still needs to be fleshed out. It feels like we have no choice but to get there. Retail media in store has taken quite a long time, but we know that this is probably one of the next commerce media of industries or verticals. So there's definitely something there. We just need to see how, I think, the partnerships will make a big difference and understanding what that could look like would get me closer to a one.

Marcus Johnson (31:34):

Cool.

Paul Verna (31:36):

Yeah, I'm half in for similar reasons. I think absolutely that the connected car will be the next frontier, both in terms of consumer usage and advertising possibilities. But I think, and especially the way you laid it out, Oscar, there are a lot of partnerships. And no pun intended, moving parts that have to be in place. So I don't see it as a six-month play. I see it as something that will unfold. So I think it'll happen. Because of the timing, I guess I'll be-

Oscar Orozco (32:07):

More cautious.

Paul Verna (32:10):

... a little half committal here.

Oscar Orozco (32:12):

I'll take it.

Marcus Johnson (32:13):

All right, so-

Paul Verna (32:15):

And also Oscar, it means you and I are tied and we will hand Susie a [inaudible 00:32:19].

Marcus Johnson (32:18):

It does indeed.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:19):

Oh my God Paul.

Marcus Johnson (32:20):

Paul's prediction, a major US news organization will get bought by a billionaire. Next six months is one point and a half in terms of investment, Oscar's prediction that there'll be more comprehensive connected car ads in the next six months, one and a half points. And Susie's Pepsi will split into snack and beverages and two points making her. And this pains me to literally no end,

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:41):

Drum roll please.

Marcus Johnson (32:44):

There's no need.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:44):

There's going to be guests.

Marcus Johnson (32:44):

Forget the confetti and the trumpet as well. We don't need any of that background stuff. Susie won. Moving on. Thank you so much for coming today for everyone.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:50):

I'm honored.

Paul Verna (32:50):

Congrats Susie

Oscar Orozco (32:50):

Congrats Susie.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:50):

Thank you for this.

Oscar Orozco (32:50):

It's the best news.

Paul Verna (32:50):

Well deserved.

Suzy Davidkhanian (32:50):

To my fellow analysts who are very smart. I appreciate it.

Marcus Johnson (33:01):

Very competitive. That was a good one. Thank you so much guys for hanging out with me today. Thank you to Oscar.

Oscar Orozco (33:06):

Thanks Marcus. Thanks for having me. And Paul.

Paul Verna (33:08):

Always a pleasure.

Marcus Johnson (33:09):

And today's winner, Susie.

Suzy Davidkhanian (33:11):

Oh my god. Can you say that again?

Marcus Johnson (33:13):

Okay. No, we'll cut this bit out. We'll just pretending Susie left already. Thank you to the whole editing crew, to everyone for listening to Behind the Numbers, an eMarketer Video podcast made possible by Nielsen, subscribing and following helps more than you know, as do ratings and reviews, just not terrible ones. If you'd like to write in a personal complaint about Susie, you can of course contact us directly on a helpline. We'll be back Monday, happiest of weekends.