Events & Resources

Learning Center
Read through guides, explore resource hubs, and sample our coverage.
Learn More
Events
Register for an upcoming webinar and track which industry events our analysts attend.
Learn More
Podcasts
Listen to our podcast, Behind the Numbers for the latest news and insights.
Learn More

About

Our Story
Learn more about our mission and how EMARKETER came to be.
Learn More
Our Clients
Key decision-makers share why they find EMARKETER so critical.
Learn More
Our People
Take a look into our corporate culture and view our open roles.
Join the Team
Our Methodology
Rigorous proprietary data vetting strips biases and produces superior insights.
Learn More
Newsroom
See our latest press releases, news articles or download our press kit.
Learn More
Contact Us
Speak to a member of our team to learn more about EMARKETER.
Contact Us

What If? OpenAI Acquires Snapchat, Starbucks Goes Crypto, and Paramount Cuts the Cord | Behind the Numbers

On today’s podcast episode, we discuss our ‘very specific, but highly unlikely’ predictions for 2025. What would happen to the social media world if OpenAI bought Snap, what if Starbucks launched a Stablecoin, and why some companies might still want to buy linear networks. Join Senior Director of Podcasts and host Marcus Johnson, Vice Presidents of Content Suzy Davidkhanian and Paul Verna, and Principal Analyst Yory Wurmser. Listen everywhere and watch on YouTube and Spotify.

Subscribe to the “Behind the Numbers” podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, YouTube, Podbean or wherever you listen to podcasts. Follow us on Instagram.

Cint is a global insights company. Our media measurement solutions help advertisers, publishers, platforms, and media agencies measure the impact of cross-platform ad campaigns by leveraging our platform’s global reach. Cint’s attitudinal measurement product, Lucid Measurement, has measured over 15,000 campaigns and has over 500 billion impressions globally. For more information, visit cint.com/insights.

Episode Transcript:

Marcus Johnson (00:00):

Are your brand campaigns as effective as they could be? Of course not. Calm down. I get it. If you're only getting insights when the campaign is over, then the answer is of course no. To make better campaign decisions, you need real-time measurement, you need Lucid Measurement by Cint. Discover the power of real-time brand lift measurement at cint.com/insights, that's C-I-N-T.com/insights and get yourself a cheeky little demo today. Hey, gang, it's Monday, June 23rd. Yory, Paul, Suzy, and listeners, welcome to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast made possible by Cint. I'm Marcus, and join me for today's conversation. We have those three people. Let's meet them properly. We have with us our principal analyst who covers everything advertising, media and technology, living in New Jersey, it's Yory Wurmser.

Yory Wurmser (00:51):

Hey, Marcus, how are you?

Marcus Johnson (00:53):

Hey, fellow. Very good. How are you?

Yory Wurmser (00:55):

Doing great.

Marcus Johnson (00:56):

Good things? We also have with us our VP of content, he calls Maine home, it's Paul Verna.

Paul Verna (01:02):

Great to be here. And if you had caught me X number of years ago, you could have said I was living in New Jersey too.

Marcus Johnson (01:08):

Indeed, yeah. Everyone, it's a prerequisite for EMARKETER to have some ties to New Jersey. VP of content, head of our retail desk living in New York with family in New Jersey, I think, Suzy Davidkhanian.

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:23):

Yes. Thanks for having me. I am very excited I got asked back for this very special episode.

Marcus Johnson (01:29):

Yeah, Blake couldn't make it. Today's facts is where we begin. Salt was sometimes used to pay soldiers in ancient Rome. So this became known as salarium argentum from which we now derive the word salary, because the Latin word for salt is sal and it's the root word of salarium. And salt was crucial for a bunch of things. Preserving food, probably the main one, but also disinfecting wounds, it was used in religious ceremonies as well. So they weren't just paying with salt. They got coins and money too. But, yeah, they would get paid in salt.

Paul Verna (02:16):

Usually-

Marcus Johnson (02:16):

If you think about it, EMARKETER, I need real money. Sorry, Paul.

Paul Verna (02:21):

I agree with that. Also, usually, your facts of the day are completely mind-blowing and eye-opening. They come out of nowhere. But this one, I have to say I knew this from my Latin class in 10th grade.

Marcus Johnson (02:34):

You took Latin?

Paul Verna (02:35):

I did. I did.

Marcus Johnson (02:36):

Oh, my God.

Paul Verna (02:39):

So the teacher-

Marcus Johnson (02:39):

That's amazing.

Paul Verna (02:39):

... would start every class with an English word and trace the Latin roots.

Marcus Johnson (02:44):

Oh, cool. It's fascinating. Yeah, because Jeff Desjardins of Visual Capitalist was noting a soldier's salary was cut if he was not worth his salt, which is a phrase that we still use today.

Paul Verna (02:56):

There you go.

Marcus Johnson (02:57):

So, yeah. I guess, Paul, we must've had a lot those being traced back to... Anyway, today's real topic. Very specific but highly unlikely predictions for 2025 Shark Tank-style round one. Okay, here's how this episode works. Each person, Yory first, will have 60 seconds to pitch a very specific but highly unlikely prediction for 2025. And then the rest of us, me, Suzy, Paul, and everyone listening will decide if we are going to invest in it, believe in it. That's what it means. Do believe in the prediction. Then we move to the next contestant and repeat. So Suzy will be next, and me, Yory, and Paul will become the new panel.

(03:40):

Let's quickly check in on some of the predictions we thought would come true this year. We did this twice a year. We did it in December right before the year started, we do a mid-year round as well and we've done pretty well. Paul, you said TikTok would succeed in delaying the January 19th deadline to divest from its Chinese owner. You nailed that multiple times. A gift that keeps on giving, apparently. Jasmine said that Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump will likely fall out, each having a social platform, and how that might possibly mean they're going to combine them, but actually if they fall out, it could have a multitude of ramifications. So she got that right. Suzy, you said Party City will file for bankruptcy. It did indeed. That's the only one you've got, right? I will admit a lot of the other ones-

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:27):

Today's might be the next one.

Marcus Johnson (04:29):

What's that?

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:29):

Today's might be the next one I got, right?

Marcus Johnson (04:31):

It could be. You do have a great one for today. Yes. Let's see. But we'll start with Yory first. Today's prediction, Yory.

Yory Wurmser (04:37):

All right, so my prediction is OpenAI will buy Snapchat. I took the highly unlikely direction seriously. Few reasons I think it makes sense for them to buy it, first of all, the data. OpenAI has been rumored to be looking to build its own social network. Snapchat is cheap, $13 billion, I think something like that in its valuation. Cheap for OpenAI. It has tons of user information, has tons of influencer data that OpenAI can use to train its models in trends. OpenAI also has technology, it has its spectacles, which clearly OpenAI is interested in building devices. It has experience with commerce and it specifically has experience with augmented reality and play space and wear, try-on technology. So all of that I think makes it really an interesting purchase.

Marcus Johnson (05:40):

Yeah. Do they buy it and keep it standalone, do you think? Keep the brand's... Or do you think they eventually fold it into something with OpenAI branding?

Yory Wurmser (05:49):

I'd assume they'd keep it standalone. I mean, they have many hundred millions of users right now, so... I mean, Snap has many hundreds of millions of users. So it's a lot of brand equity to keep.

Marcus Johnson (06:04):

Yory, you talked about the users and having a couple of hundred million, which is a few hundreds of millions, which is true, but they are... Which is why I think your prediction is especially a good one. They are one of the very few social networks who we expect... At least our forecasting team expects to lose users this year in the US. And you've got Threads, they're expected to grow the most. 23% user growth this year is what we expect. Reddit, 12%, and then TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, about 3 to 5% each. Facebook flat, but then Snapchat -0.4%, only a little bit, but still down. X, formerly Twitter, going down two points as well. So if you're looking to buy their stock when it was at maybe a lower point than it has been in the past, yeah, you're probably going to get a pretty good deal on them given that they aren't in a fantastic position.

Yory Wurmser (06:53):

And still have great influencer data and user data, so-

Marcus Johnson (06:57):

Yeah.

Yory Wurmser (06:58):

... makes sense.

Marcus Johnson (06:59):

I'm in. I have to be in. Yeah. 2025 is... That's the thing that's getting me, because these are predictions that will happen this year. So for that reason, I might be half-in. Suzy, you invented the half point, didn't you?

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:10):

I sure did.

Marcus Johnson (07:11):

I'm grateful now. It took two years. I think I'm half-in because I don't know if it would happen this year. Paul, what do you think? Too soon?

Paul Verna (07:22):

I will say that I was a lot more convinced when Yory agreed that it would be kept separate, because I don't think it would work otherwise or it wouldn't work as well. So can I invent the three-quarter point or-

Marcus Johnson (07:39):

Absolutely not. No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Suzy was pushing it alone. That's why she got banned for-

Paul Verna (07:43):

All right, I'm in. I'm in.

Marcus Johnson (07:45):

Full point?

Paul Verna (07:46):

Full point.

Marcus Johnson (07:47):

Boy, my goodness. Suzy?

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:48):

I didn't know I was banned. I thought I'd been in all the episodes. I'm very upset now.

Marcus Johnson (07:53):

Yeah, we thought it would best not to tell you the real reason. Welcome back.

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:56):

Oh, my gosh. Did I really miss any?

Paul Verna (07:59):

No. No, we didn't do any while you were out.

Marcus Johnson (08:00):

No, I don't think it was-

Paul Verna (08:01):

Absolutely not.

Suzy Davidkhanian (08:02):

While I was banned? So I also give it a half point. The only reason why is because I think the complexity... Maybe down the line, it would happen, but the complexity of stringing the two data sets to one so that ChatGPT could truly leverage the influencer data, and the brand data, and the user data from Snap to make ChatGPT stronger I think would take more than six months. But otherwise, I think that they really can't create the network effect on their own and need to lean in on someone else, and it would help them thereafter with shopping.

Marcus Johnson (08:35):

Yeah.

Paul Verna (08:36):

Yeah. My issue is also that my quarter point deduction would've been mostly on the basis of timing. But since I was not allowed to do it, I'm going to err on the side of supporting it rather than not.

Marcus Johnson (08:48):

Okay.

Suzy Davidkhanian (08:49):

Hey, half a point is a support.

Marcus Johnson (08:51):

It is, yeah, that's two of three for Yory. So two points total for Yory, it's a good start to the round.

Yory Wurmser (08:58):

I appreciate the support.

Marcus Johnson (09:01):

Suzy?

Suzy Davidkhanian (09:01):

Oh, my God, the pressure's on because I didn't realize I had not been invited back since some of my crazy predictions.

Marcus Johnson (09:09):

No, that wasn't the only reason. There was other behavior issues, but-

Suzy Davidkhanian (09:12):

The tomato speak?

Marcus Johnson (09:13):

Mainly. Yes.

Suzy Davidkhanian (09:14):

Back, so be ready. Okay, you guys, in all seriousness, I'm really excited about mine. Recently in the news, we heard or read that, potentially, Amazon and Walmart are starting to investigate this idea around doing a stablecoin that is their own within their own ecosystem. And while there is a lot of value in the Walmart one because they've been trying to set up the foundation over the last few years by making a purchase to try and get that going and doing some patents and some announcements, I do think that Starbucks doing it might be first to market before Walmart does. And I think right now is the right time because, as we know, legislation is much more in favor of crypto.

(09:58):

Stablecoin takes care of some of that fluctuation that retailers were worried about in terms of receiving the payment in the form of crypto. From a retailer, quick-service restaurants, it's truly a no-brainer in that there are close to zero fees, it's instant payment, they get to improve their cash flow. They also potentially have a new revenue model that comes through the stablecoin because it's like a debit card, you're filling a debit card with stablecoin that's issued by the retailer, or Starbucks in this case, and then you're holding it as a reserve that then you're paying. So the retailer is making money off of all of that dollars that they're getting, plus they're paying less in transaction fees, which, by some accounts, is the billions and billions of dollars annually that retailers are paying to credit card. So it's the interchange fees. So I think, from that perspective, it's a no-brainer that this will happen soon. Why Starbucks, you might ask. As you see in the chart... I have a chart for you.

Marcus Johnson (10:59):

Oh, well played.

Suzy Davidkhanian (11:01):

We do forecast mobile wallets, and Starbucks is right behind in terms of users at 39.4 million, which is right under Google Pay. Apple Pay is obviously, by far, ahead, but Starbucks has a really strong ecosystem when it comes to loyalty and a mobile wallet already. And the stablecoin goes together very well with rewards and loyalty, and it all tag-teams onto one another and it's a way to get people to keep coming back to you. We already know I did a little bit of digging around Starbucks. They have that 34 million active users. It is the largest loyalty program... So now we're just talking about the app, right? It's the largest loyalty program in the US. About 40% of their sales come from their strongest loyalty members who spend three times more and visit the store more often.

(11:51):

And stablecoin, that is embedded in the already existing digital wallet, so lower barrier to entry for folks, would connect online and in-store in a much easier way and you could get rewards that are paid out in stablecoins. Now you might say, "What about Starbucks's Odyssey program," which was in pilot for two years and failed... Or maybe it didn't fail, maybe they were just measuring the wrong KPIs. So to that question or that remark, I would say the Odyssey was more about NFTs and gamification and I think it was too early. It's like QR codes are 15 years old and we needed a reason for people to start using them, and I think stablecoin, the same thing will happen in smaller businesses. You're starting to see the upcharge for credit cards where it's like, "Pay in cash, it's $3. Pay with a credit card, it's 3.25." So I think consumers will start to think about this and start to really invest in a non-credit card payment option.

Marcus Johnson (12:50):

So stablecoin for folks is a type of cryptocurrency and it's-

Suzy Davidkhanian (12:55):

Hedged to a dollar.

Marcus Johnson (12:56):

Exactly. Trying to reduce volatility by pegging it to something like the US dollar. Exactly right. Yory, what do you think?

Yory Wurmser (13:02):

I'm going to give it a point because I actually think it makes a ton of sense for Starbucks. Not only has it reduced those transaction fees, I think it gives easy access to non-bank people. Now Starbucks has a more affluent base, but it has a lot of students and people like that who might have difficulty getting credit cards. So, to me, it seems like a really smart fit.

Marcus Johnson (13:28):

How is this going to be received by the average consumer though? Would this be something that they can just start using straight away? Will this not confuse them quite a lot? Will they be thinking to themselves, "Why am I going to have cryptocurrency for Starbucks and a separate one for Walmart and a separate one for this retailer?" Will it not cause more confusion for the average person potentially?

Suzy Davidkhanian (13:52):

Well, that's a great question, Marcus. PayPal amongst others, digital wallets already have their own stablecoin. So consumers are starting to become more familiar with it. There is a bill in the legislation talking about crypto, and stablecoin has always pulled out of it because it's pegged and the volatility is just against currency basically. So I think because it's already in the ecosystem of payments, because the legislative body is talking about it and there will be safety mechanisms.

(14:22):

And because, let's be honest, there are lots and lots of articles about crypto and the government and people launching their own cryptocurrency, government officials included, I do think that that barrier that people might not quite understand it, but they're so accustomed to hearing about it that they'll be more open to figuring it out. And that's why Starbucks is the important one. If it's within the Starbucks digital wallet that the consumer already has downloaded and is using, then I think it's just instead of putting cash into it in whatever mechanism, whether it's your credit card that you're putting cash into it or a debit card, now you're just putting... It's a different thing that you're putting. An elusive thing that you're putting into your wallet.

Marcus Johnson (15:06):

Yeah. Them having the loyalty folks through the app already I think is a huge leg up here. I think I'm in, but in the next six months. So, I mean, they are moving quick and their new CEO has done a lot already. We wrote about the Green Dot Assist, the new GenAI assistants where baristas-

Suzy Davidkhanian (15:29):

Ordering.

Marcus Johnson (15:30):

... which they access through tablets, but the baristas can use it to reduce service time, streamline operations, basically ask it questions about different specialty menu items or whatnot. So I think they are trying to find ways to make things streamlined, happen faster, and this would do that, a faster transaction. So it's probably on their radar. I'm going to say half a point. I think six months, no, but half a point. Paul?

Paul Verna (16:00):

I have to say I'm a little skeptical of this certainly happening in the next six months. I still think that Bitcoin is much more of an investment vehicle than a transactional vehicle right now, and there's a lot of resistance to changing that. And I think with Starbucks in particular, I foresee a big backlash. Starbucks has already had big battles against unionization. They have a CEO who commutes by private jet every day, so there are going to be environmental issues that are going to be compounded by launching a cryptocurrency.

Marcus Johnson (16:39):

Yeah, it's very-

Paul Verna (16:40):

So I just see a lot of obstacles along the way to making this happen. I don't think it's a bad idea. And I also think there could be a big crypto crash in the not too distant future. I think crypto will eventually be part of our lives on every level including transactional. But I just don't know if this is the moment. I don't know if we need to go through a dot-com bust and boom cycle, but I just see a lot of volatility, a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of just risk factors.

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:17):

So all very fair points. Bitcoin is not a stablecoin and Bitcoin is the crypto stuff that you're talking about, which is that's why the stablecoin is different in that a stablecoin is pegged to the US currency and doesn't have any of the risks that you're talking about. It's like buying a dollar versus-

Marcus Johnson (17:35):

Do you think people will be able to separate that in their mind? Do you think that they're going to be able say-

Paul Verna (17:37):

Yeah. They're still... Yeah. I think-

Suzy Davidkhanian (17:40):

Yes, because we're spending so much time in the media because of PayPal. PayPal already has stablecoin for this exact reason. Retailers will not take crypto unless it's like you're buying a Porsche that's $100,000. The value of a Bitcoin is... Today, it's a $100, tomorrow, it's $500, the next day, it's $300. And so that's impossible for a retailer to take-

Paul Verna (18:03):

No, I understand the distinction between them and the fact that it's not nearly as speculative, but I think there's still the idea that it's a virtual currency and I think that's part of the leap that people aren't making quite yet. Even if the media has gone out of its way to make the distinction, I just don't know if it's really catching up.

Marcus Johnson (18:30):

Yeah, I think both is true because I think people are going to have a hard time distinguishing any type of cryptocurrency from any type of cryptocurrency. In their minds, they're going to think it's the same thing and maybe treat it with the same level of skepticism. Maybe that will fade over time. And, Suzy, to your point, it does seem like there's a big push to try and explain that to folks that stablecoins are different. So, Paul, you're out?

Paul Verna (18:56):

I'm out.

Marcus Johnson (18:57):

I'm half-in.

Paul Verna (18:58):

With all due respect, Suzy-

Suzy Davidkhanian (18:59):

Yeah, of course.

Paul Verna (18:59):

... because, again, I think there are a lot of things about this that will happen eventually.

Marcus Johnson (19:04):

Paul said, "With no due respect, I'm about out of here." So Suzy, point and a half. Paul, can you beat it? What's yours?

Paul Verna (19:14):

Well, so mine is that Paramount will be the next media company to follow in the footsteps of Comcast/NBCUniversal and Warner Brothers Discovery in spinning off its cable assets.

Marcus Johnson (19:29):

Okay.

Paul Verna (19:30):

This is... I think to call it unlikely is maybe using false modesty because this is going to happen. I mean, it's inevitable and it's not because I came up with a genius prediction. It's just because the way of the world in the TV universe is that audiences are going to streaming, there's no turning back that tide, and every one of these media companies is struggling in general, but particularly with their linear TV assets. So it's a no-brainer.

(20:05):

And this is something that would've happened many years ago if it weren't that the cable business model was still delivering enough returns for these companies that they were able to justify keeping those in their portfolios even though they knew they were eventually going to be losing propositions. But I think now is when they have to pay the piper. And, yeah, so I think Paramount because they're in the middle of this merger with Skydance and because they have so much riding on that from a business perspective, but also in terms of appeasing the regulators, I think it's almost a... Given that they will try to lighten their own load by getting rid of some of those networks. And in their case, it would be BET, Nickelodeon, MTV, and the Paramount TV entertainment networks, but probably not CBS, the flagship network or CBS News or CBS Sports.

Suzy Davidkhanian (21:08):

So, Paul, how does that work? Each individual asset goes out into the world for people to bid on or are they divesting or are they separating the company into two? How-

Paul Verna (21:19):

It's more likely to be a divestment of the... Whatever assets they decide are going to be spun off would be spun off as a unit. So it wouldn't be like, "Oh, we're having a clearance sale. You can buy MTV or you can buy Nickelodeon," it's more likely to be a hedge fund or some other holding company. And in some cases, like in the case of Warner Brothers Discovery, they're still keeping... And, actually, the same was true for NBCUniversal. The parent company is still keeping a stake in the linear TV side of it. So they're not selling it off and walking away completely, but they're divesting a great part of their interest in those businesses.

Yory Wurmser (22:04):

Yeah. I mean, I think it makes total sense. The economics of it are pretty clear. So I'm going to give it a point.

Marcus Johnson (22:12):

[inaudible 00:22:12] full point. Same, Suzy?

Suzy Davidkhanian (22:17):

So I will just play devil's advocate for a second. I hear what you guys are saying. Obviously, Paul is so sure of it that I will give it a point, but what I don't know is if all these deals are happening at the same time and there are not so great components to linear TV for all the things that Paul said, right? All the reasons why a company would want to divest, why would a private equity company or any other company want to buy when... And they'll get it at such a discount because there's a few of them on the block right now. Would it actually happen in the next six months or will it take a little bit more time between the deals so that the value of the components goes back to a more fair price, whatever that is. But because Paul is so sure of it-

Paul Verna (23:03):

Well, I just think there's a lot of urgency on Paramount's part to make it happen, and I also think it's overdue. As far as the value for the private equity firm or whoever buys these assets, I honestly can't vouch for that. To me, I wouldn't want to put my money, I don't even know how much salt I would put into investing in linear TV networks. But they do still make money, so maybe if you... Again, it gets down to economies of scale. So maybe if you have enough of them and you're able to leverage them. But there's something still to be said for traditional TV programming. There's still an audience that's not subscribed. So maybe you would do it in a way that caters to 55-plus people, which none of the media companies have wanted to do because they have a lot more at stake reaching younger audiences, which is why streaming makes so much sense to them. But it would almost be a niche business and something that if you could dial it in right and you had a lot of networks, it could potentially make sense.

Suzy Davidkhanian (24:14):

So, for me, I would say I'm giving it a one if the prediction was they will want to sell. But if the prediction is someone will purchase it, I'm giving it a zero because I just don't think that'll happen in the next six months.

Paul Verna (24:28):

I still think that there are buyers out there who are interested. And frankly the prices are going to be, if not fire sales, something close to that. So I think there will be some pretty attractive price points.

Marcus Johnson (24:41):

All right. I don't think he's changing.

Paul Verna (24:43):

I think it's more likely that they would announce that these things are going to be spun off in the next six months. But to your point, Suzy, maybe it doesn't happen until next year, but I don't think we're talking about two, three years down the line. I think we're talking about a 6 to 12-month timeframe.

Marcus Johnson (25:00):

All right, Suzy, you in?

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:02):

With that second piece of explanation, yeah.

Marcus Johnson (25:05):

Full point?

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:07):

Well, yeah, if we're hedging, they're going to announce this now, and then it'll take some time for the deal to happen, then, yeah, I agree. You would be a fool not to agree with Paul. But if it's all of it will happen now in the next six months, then I would give it only half a point.

Marcus Johnson (25:21):

All right. Full point. Well played. All right, Paul gets the full three for his, Yory gets two for his, which was OpenAI will buy Snap, and Suzy...

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:36):

It's okay.

Marcus Johnson (25:39):

... lost again.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:39):

You'll just have to ask me to come again.

Marcus Johnson (25:40):

Point and a half.

Suzy Davidkhanian (25:40):

Try again.

Marcus Johnson (25:43):

Probably not. Third place will not get invited back. The Starbucks will accept/launch their own stablecoin. Point and a half. But still, 50% likely, with a point and a half. So pretty good. All good predictions today, folks. Well played. We've got three more very specific but highly unlikely predictions for you on Friday from three other folks. That's all we have time for today's episode. Thank you so much to my guests. Thank you to Suzy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (26:05):

Thanks for having me.

Marcus Johnson (26:06):

Of course. Thank you to Yory.

Yory Wurmser (26:08):

Great to be here.

Marcus Johnson (26:09):

And to Paul.

Paul Verna (26:10):

Thanks as always.

Marcus Johnson (26:11):

And thank you, of course, to the whole editing crew and to everyone for listening to Behind the Numbers, an EMARKETER video podcast made possible by Cint. Subscribe. It's free. Follow us, but not home, and leave a rating and review to make the world a better place. Sarah will be here Wednesday to give you the oddest marketing tactics that we've seen from retailers this year.



Create an account for uninterrupted access to select audios.
Create a Free Account