What If? A Billionaire Bought CNN or CNBC, Pepsi Was Cut In Half, and Connected Car Ads Were Amazing | Behind the Numbers

Summary

Podcast Summary: "What If? A Billionaire Bought CNN or CNBC, Pepsi Was Cut In Half, and Connected Car Ads Were Amazing"

Behind the Numbers: an EMARKETER Podcast
Date: September 26, 2025
Host: Marcus (EMARKETER)
Guests: Paul Werner (VP of Content), Suzy Davidkhanian (VP of Content, Retail), Oscar Orozco (Senior Director of Forecasting)

---

Episode Overview

In this lively, Shark Tank-style episode, Marcus and the EMARKETER team make bold, highly specific, and unlikely predictions for the next six months in the world of media, consumer packaged goods, and advertising technology. Each analyst gets 60 seconds to pitch their “wild card” idea, and the others decide whether to “invest” (i.e., believe it’s plausible)—all with the mix of competition, banter, and practical insights that fans of Behind the Numbers love.

The three predictions up for debate:

1. A billionaire will buy a major U.S. news organization (CNN/CNBC).
2. PepsiCo will split its beverage and snack businesses.
3. Connected car advertising will see breakthrough innovation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Billionaire Buys CNN or CNBC

Pitch by Paul Werner
[05:22-11:45]

• Prediction: In the next six months, a billionaire will acquire a major U.S. news organization like CNN or CNBC.
• Rationale:
  • Traditional news media is under financial/industry pressure, now worsened by AI and fragmented audiences.
  • Recent precedent: Jeff Bezos (Washington Post), Elon Musk (Twitter/X), Michael Bloomberg, and David Ellison (Paramount properties).
  • Industry is seeing breakups, mergers, and legacy TV networks being split off or sold.
  • Quote: "I think the writing is on the wall for something like this to happen in the relative near future." (Paul, 07:01)
• Debate Points:
  • Suszy questions whether left-leaning properties are less likely to be bought due to political climate and risk-averse buyers (07:25).
  • Paul counters that distressed properties are actually likelier acquisition targets for buyers willing to play the long game.
    • Quote: "[These are] recognizable brands that, prior to the current moment...had a lot of appeal and maybe still do in some future." (Paul, 08:03)
  • Oscar brings up the consumer perspective: will this benefit viewers, or just entrench media echo chambers?
    • Quote: "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for the American consumer?" (Oscar, 09:29)
• Investment Votes:
  • Suszy: OUT (“Not a now kind of thing, much longer term, too messy, billionaires like easy money.” – 12:10)
  • Marcus: HALF IN (concerned about timing)
  • Oscar: IN (“I could see it happening...especially as we move into sort of midterm elections next year.” – 13:21)

---

2. Pepsi Splits Snack and Beverage Business

Pitch by Suzy Davidkhanian
[13:28-21:23]

• Prediction: PepsiCo will spin off or split its beverage business from its snacks division, creating two modular companies.
• Rationale:
  • Pepsi lags behind Coke and Dr. Pepper; innovation in beverages (e.g., probiotic soda) isn’t compensating for declining relevance in health-conscious markets.
  • Pepsi owns successful snack brands; snacks have higher margins and loyalty than beverages.
  • Precedent: Kraft-Heinz and Kellogg's recent splits, pointing toward a larger industry trend to unlock “pockets of growth.”
  • Investor Elliott Management pressuring change due to lagging stock performance; Pepsi shares down 15% versus Coke’s 15% gain, S&P up 40% over 2 years.
  • Quote: “For shareholders, you get more value...If not, you can opt out of the Pepsi Cola business in an easier way than right now...you also have to absorb the drag that is colas.” (Suzy, 17:41)
• Debate Points:
  • Paul asks: How does the split resolve Pepsi's issues? Kraft-Heinz had cultural incompatibilities; is Pepsi comparable?
  • Suzy argues splitting allows tailored innovation/investment and unlocks value by preventing snacks from subsidizing lagging drinks.
  • Oscar questions risk from private label competition; Suzy contends snacks’ unique formulations are harder to copy than cola.
    • Quote: “Doritos or other Frito Lay snacks seem to be so specific in their formulation.” (Suzy, 19:58)
• Investment Votes:
  • Marcus: HALF IN (“You’ve convinced me. I think this is a clever strategy.” – 20:15)
  • Paul: IN (“If I survived Nutella with my cornflakes, I’m ready for this one.” – 20:49)
  • Oscar: HALF IN (doubts about whether a spinoff changes long-term outlook)

---

3. Connected Car Ads Will Become Amazing

Pitch by Oscar Orozco
[22:02-32:11]

• Prediction: Within six months, the auto industry and partners will create breakthrough connected car advertising experiences, using advanced targeting and partnerships.
• Rationale:
  • Connected car users are already 165M (58% of Americans), and forecast is climbing.
  • U.S. drivers spend close to an hour/day in the car—more than on tablets or laptops.
  • Enormous opportunity for in-car targeted ads using location and behavioral data (navigation, shopping habits, etc.).
  • Future could include interactive, contextual, shoppable ads and partnerships (e.g., Amazon/Tesla).
  • Quote: “It’s more time per day than people spend on their tablets, on their laptops. I mean, it’s close to the CTV number we’re seeing now.” (Oscar, 23:19)
• Debate Points:
  • Suzy clarifies: Will ads be shoppable via screen, voice, partnerships?
  • Oscar: Yes, spanning touch, voice, cross-device and data integrations—“targeted ads...mix what people search for at home, in the car, their shopping carts.”
    • Quote: "Providing this data...to target these consumers, not just in the car...but eventually...much more prominent in people's lives." (Oscar, 28:04)
  • Paul raises privacy/regulatory concerns: more ads in cars could be “a marketer’s dream, but maybe a consumer’s nightmare.” (27:26)
  • Suzy: Voice activation, timing at red lights, and tie-ins with digital wallets (e.g., Starbucks stablecoin) could boost adoption.
• Investment Votes:
  • Marcus: HALF IN (timing ambitious, but opportunity real—cites Audacy data on motivated drivers: “the car’s captive environment...create[s] significant opportunities.” – 30:57)
  • Suzy: HALF IN (inevitable, but needs more time/partnerships)
  • Paul: HALF IN (will happen, but not in next 6 months; “a lot of partnerships and no pun intended, moving parts.” – 31:34)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Paul: "The consumer and media itself have splintered to where there's no middle ground anymore." (09:42)
• Suzy: "There's a lot of moving parts happening now in CPG...sometimes you can be too big and fail, and the pockets of growth don't shine when they have to help the lagging businesses." (18:40)
• Oscar: "We're talking targeted ads here...adding layers of what people are searching for...providing something that doesn't exist yet." (25:28)
• Suzy (on snacks vs. private label): "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." (19:58)
• Marcus (on the connected car market): "165 million folks already drive a connected car. That's 58% of Americans." (22:36)
• Paul (humor): “If I survived Nutella with my cornflakes...I’m ready for this one.” (20:49)
• Suzy (competitive spirit): “Always about that behind the curtain, listeners, is Susie...she said that their predictions were terrible.” (04:24)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Fact of the Day & Competition Setup: [00:00-05:07]
• Paul's Prediction: Billionaire Buys CNN/CNBC: [05:22-13:21]
• Suzy's Prediction: Pepsi Splits Business: [13:28-21:23]
• Oscar's Prediction: Connected Car Ads: [22:02-32:11]
• Recap / Scoring: [32:14-32:55]
• Closing Banter: [32:55-end]

---

Final “Investments” Leaderboard

• Suzy (Pepsi split): 2 points – Winner
• Paul (Billionaire buyout): 1.5 points
• Oscar (Connected car ads): 1.5 points

---

Takeaway

This episode offers a sharp, energetic look at three provocative “what if” ideas for Q4 2025/Q1 2026 in media, CPG, and adtech.

• Consolidation (media mega-acquisitions) is chilling but plausible.
• Restructuring (CPG splits) could unlock fresh momentum.
• Innovation (connected cars) is poised to disrupt, but may need more time.

Throughout, the analysts inject industry wisdom with humor, skepticism, and a dash of competition, making the episode a must-listen for marketers and strategists trying to stay ahead of the “next big thing.”

Transcript

[A]

Your audience is seeing ads everywhere, even on the screens you'd least expect. Nielsen Ad intel 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 Ad Intel. Hey, gang. It's Friday, September 26th. Paul, Susie, Oscar and listeners, welcome to behind the Numbers, an email to video podcast made possible by Nielse. 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 Maine. It's Paul Werner.

[B]

Always a pleasure.

[A]

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 David Canyon.

[C]

Thanks for having me back.

[A]

Absolutely. And of course, our Senior Director of forecasting, also living in ny, Oscar Orozco.

[D]

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

[A]

Yes, sir, indeed. And 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.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

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

[D]

One on record anywhere in the world? Yes, I would say 80 Fahrenheit.

[A]

80 Fahrenheit. Swing. Susie's gone. You said 20.

[C]

20 Celsius.

[A]

Oh, 20 Celsius.

[B]

Okay, get out your calculators.

[A]

Yeah, I know. That's going to be like. Or would that be 40?

[C]

I guess it's about the same as. Yeah, well, just a bit under 80.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay. Okay. And Paul?

[B]

73 Fahrenheit.

[A]

73.

[C]

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

[A]

Way too low when you're involved, Susie, you're way too low. So according to Guinness World Records, the greatest temperature variation in a single location in 24 hour period was, 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 9am January 14 to 49 Fahrenheit plus 49 by 8am the following day. For our listeners across the pond, that's negative 48 Celsius to plus 9 Celsius in 24 hours. So that's a near 60 Celsius swing or an over 100 Fahrenheit swing in a single day.

[D]

Crazy. Could you imagine the wardrobes, everything from flip flops to mittens.

[A]

Crazy. Chinook wind is responsible because it's a warm dry down slope winds from the western North America. It rapidly melts snow. Folks call them snow eaters and this extreme condition causes the drastic temperature increases in 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 this year, Q1 of next year, then me, Susie, Oscar and everyone listening decide if we are going to invest, invest in or believe in basically his prediction. Susie goes next, etc. Paul, what do you have for us?

[B]

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?

[C]

This goes back to my point, Markus.

[A]

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

[C]

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

[A]

Always about that behind the curtain listeners is Susie for 45 minutes was just putting all of her analysts on blast because she said that their predictions were terrible and.

[C]

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

[A]

She sent me an email, it was seven pages letter.

[C]

Marcus, what are you talking about in an email? It was cursed by the letter because I'm an analyst.

[A]

Supposed to. So it's very specific. So it's more interesting and it's highly unlikely because the more specific specific you get, the less likely it is to be. Susie has leaned very heavily into the very, very unlikely. Paul is also doing something different as well. What are you up to? Well, I think that you believe in it very strongly.

[B]

It sounds like 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.

[D]

Bring it. All right, here we go.

[B]

All right, so my real Prediction is that a major U.S. 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.

[A]

Yep. So what 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, bet, et cetera. Why?

[B]

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 have already, or the owners of those networks have already been spitting them off in part of a breakup of their portfolio into streaming and linear tv. 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.

[C]

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.

[B]

Those are the ones that kind of rise to the top for me. But again, they're more, there are more.

[C]

Potential candidates 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 I'm not sure. Yeah, 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. Like they're all trying to be more in the middle now, it feels like. But will they be able to lean even further over?

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

I mean, I think the same forces that make them, 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, you know, these are recognizable brands that, you know, prior to the current moment that we're living in had a lot of appeal and maybe still do in some future. So I You know, I think I see the point. I think, look, any of these businesses are going to be a tough sell in the sense that like none of them scream out, hey, you know, let's, let's, let's get rich quick. You know, this is going to be a long game. But I think in the, 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, you know, he's got the Washington Post, but if he wants to expand his news portfolio into something more in streaming media, then you know, CNBC might make perfect sense.

[D]

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?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think the consumer is 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.

[A]

We'Re.

[B]

Going to be able to grow the audience outside of what the core audience is today. I think it's more about super serving the audiences that have been carved out.

[A]

The very strong brands and you're getting a very dedicated audience with that brand if you were to buy them. Right. I do wonder if it's going to be, I mean we mentioned a bunch of folks who didn't have media companies and then got into them for the first time. So 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 like a first time buyer. I just have lots of money. I want to keep the brand alive.

[B]

It's possible. I mean there's a lot of talk around 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 or 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.

[A]

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

[C]

Suzy, I am regretfully not in, not even half. Only because it's like the Shark tank mentality, right? If I'm not gonna 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 like someone like a Bloomberg who buys some something and like tax it onto what they already have. But even then I think it's too hard, it's too messy. Billionaires like easy money.

[A]

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, Suzy's out.

[D]

Oscar, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum there. I am buying this. While I do see what Suzy's saying about just the immediate, 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 know kind of how to flip things. It wouldn't be an immediate six month 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, you know, sort of midterm elections next year, it would make sense. Early in 2026.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. All right. That's one and a half points out of the possible 3 of investment. Not a bad start. Suzie, watch out for us.

[C]

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? 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 lot of money. So I think in, 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 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.

[A]

Mm. So I do believe that this could happen because Reuters was noting Elliott management, which has $4 billion stake in PepsiCo, which is a very small share, but apparently it's still a big share. 2% exactly. Which, which still is a big, still a big investor. They called for a turnaround in the beverage and snacks giant. Positioning, Sorry. Pointing out the stock performance has been lagging behind Coca Cola, they say in the past five years. I looked over the last two years. PepsiCo shares are down 15% over that time period. Coca Cola's are up 15%. The S&P is up over 40. So I could see the urgency here.

[C]

I think the interesting thing about them is that they actually want to do some different type of restructuring than 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, 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 the. In my world, Coke is everything. It's like Kleenex or, or like Googling. Right. So I mean Pepsi in this instance, sodas. But I think it's really, 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 shortsighted to do it the way they're talking about.

[B]

So I have two questions. That will help me decide if I'm in or out. 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? I'm asking it because I don't really know that business very well. 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's joins a very long list of companies that tried to merge and because of culture, because of, you know, 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.

[C]

So Pepsi did buy Quaker and Frito Lay. They 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 and is still buying, even though that doesn't technically fall into health and wellness. I think that 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. Like the umbrella business is doing really well and is helping the lagging part of the business. If they unstructure and like 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 colas. So it is definitely different in terms of what the investor is asking for. And they're not the only ones. Like Kellogg's also just unsplit. And then Ferrero 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.

[D]

So, Suzy, my question is about private label. Wouldn't the snacks business be more susceptible to competition from private label than the beverage piece? Or is that. 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 continue to see this shift to private label. So that's my question.

[C]

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.

[A]

And.

[C]

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. Right. They're buying adjacent beverages. And so this will give Pepsi the room to try and innovate in the beverage category.

[A]

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

[B]

I think I'm in. You know, 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.

[A]

So he's back.

[B]

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

[A]

Goddamn. Jesus, Oscar.

[D]

I mean, I'm half in. I mean, I think the private label question, Suzy, took some of my doubts away, but I'm still unsure about the spinoff. You would think they 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 half. And you have me half there.

[B]

What if they bundled it with a media company?

[C]

Right. Then I think CNN would go right away with Doritos, who has Orville Popcorn, who owns that brand? Because that's who CNN should be getting with.

[A]

You eat popcorn when you're watching your news?

[C]

Yeah, I don't really watch a lot of news.

[B]

It was an entertainment.

[A]

Pretty gripping.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

All right. That makes.

[C]

That was funny.

[A]

Don't be too surprised. Thank you very much. Half A point from me, half from Oscar, one from Paul, gives you two total out 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?

[D]

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.

[A]

So I like this one. And one of the reasons I like it is because, Oscar, your team's forecast. Connected car drivers 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, abbreviated 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.

[D]

Exactly. So the embedded systems and the tethered.

[A]

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

[D]

Exactly. And I mean I would add, and this is very timely, of course, we're actually just about to publish the update to this forecast and you know, 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. You know, 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, you know, just commuting to work, the 2023 data showed that people are spending about close to 54 minutes a day driving to and from work, you know, and then consider being in the car for other reasons. Right. Going shopping or going to run errands, whatever. When we look at it from a time spent angle, I mean, this is more time per day than people spend on their tablets, on their laptops. I mean, it's close to the CT 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 sort of new era of commerce media, just like an auto commerce media will come together and it'll be huge for marketers. Data we've together that has never been available to marketers before.

[C]

Is the prediction that they'll be like touchable on the screen and it'll be shoppable? It'll actually be shoppable. Or is it that like I'm making up because I didn't hear you say these things but like Amazon will work with Tesla so that it's the right sort of kind of like Amazon and Netflix are working together now, is it? Remind me what the.

[D]

This is a good question. I anticipated.

[A]

This is a good question. You said this already, Oscar, so sorry.

[D]

You haven't to repeat yourself to be more specific. I mean we're talking 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 like ride sharing vehicles. You'll see it with you know, with within apps that are tethered in cars and things like that. But increasingly so you know, even when you think of it from like the in vehicle it would be a lot in these embedded systems. So yeah, you know again it's providing this data to marketers to reach 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.

[A]

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

[D]

Exactly. You know, saying hey, you know, you are 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 sort of 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 we could. All that I've been envisioning, I think we're going to start seeing more and more of this in the next six months.

[B]

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

[D]

Private.

[B]

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 needle for sure.

[D]

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 ten years ago, we wouldn't have envisioned some of the targeted ads that 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, you know, become much bigger and much more prominent in people's lives as they're in the car.

[C]

I do think like most people who have Waze or Google Map on their screen typically, you know, when the thing that says like there's a police officer or there is a light or whatever, most people just X out of that and move on with their life. I almost feel like they, 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 stablecoins. So. Or 10 stablecoin units, whatever those are called. So please, you know, why don't you go stop here now it's on sale because of dynamic pricing.

[A]

Susie's last prediction for listeners who have no idea what she's talking about was that Starbucks would release its own stablecoin. So that's why she's worked that into the conversation.

[D]

Has to bring it up again. Yeah, no, I.

[C]

It got me on the banking show.

[A]

Just saying we needed an analyst. Suzy was the only one who was free.

[C]

We were four.

[A]

Sorry, Oscar.

[D]

No, no, and that's a good point. I mean 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, if it's a voice that is, you know, telling the driver, you know, look down at your screen now, you know, there's something that you know at this light, while you're stopped at this light is something that you might want to look at. But absolutely. Ten minutes be important.

[A]

Yeah. Ten minutes a day people spend 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 most people pull out the phones anyway at those moments if they could maybe not and have the things appear on the screen, keeping their hands free, that probably be more ideal. I think the timing was tough because it's six months but the reason I'm going to say half in and not out is because something that Jacob Bourne was saying. 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 a 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.

[D]

Half in.

[A]

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

[C]

I am also half in because I think it's we to Paul's point, it still kind of needs to be fleshed out. It feels like we have no choice but to get there. Retail media and store has taken quite a long time, but we know that this is probably one of the next commerce media industries or verticals. So there's definitely something there. I just don't know. We just need to see how the. I think the partnerships will make a big difference and understanding what that could look like would get me closer to a one.

[B]

Oh yeah, I'm half in for similar reasons. I think absolutely that you know, 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, like there are a lot of partnerships and, and no pun intended, moving parts that have to be in place. So I don't see it as like a six month play. I see it as something that will unfold. So I think it'll happen. I just, you know, because of the timing, I guess I'll be a little, a little half committal here.

[D]

I'll take it. All right.

[B]

So also Oscar, it means you and I are tied and we will hand Susie.

[C]

Oh my God.

[A]

A major US news organization will get bought by a billionaire in the 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.

[C]

Drum roll, please.

[A]

Forget the confetti and the trumpet as well. We don't need any of that background stuff. Susie 1. Moving on. Thank you so much for coming today.

[C]

I'm honored for this.

[D]

The best news.

[C]

Fellow analysts who are very smart. I appreciate it.

[A]

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

[D]

Thanks, Marcus. Thanks for having me.

[A]

And Paul, always a pleasure. And today's winner, Suzy.

[C]

Oh, my God. Can you say that again?

[A]

Okay. No, we're cutting this bit out. We'll just pretend Susie left already. Thank you to the whole editing crew, to everyone for listening to behind the Numbers, the marketer video podcast made possible by Nielsen subscribing and following helps more than you know. And as do ratings and reviews, just not terrible ones. If you'd like to write in personal complaint about Susie, you can, of course, contact us directly on our helpline. We'll be back Monday, Happiest of weekends.