What If? OpenAI Acquires Snapchat, Starbucks Goes Crypto, and Paramount Cuts the Cord | Behind the Numbers
26:38 Share

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 Synth. Discover the power of real-time brand lift measurement at synth.com slash insights. That's C-I-N-T dot com slash insights and get yourself a cheeky little demo today.

Hey gang, it's Monday, June 23rd. Yuri, Paul, Susie and listeners, welcome to Behind the Numbers, a new marketer video podcast made possible by Sint. 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 Yuri Wormser. Hey Marcus, how are you? Hey fella, very good. How are you?

Doing great. Good things. We also have with us our VP of content. He calls main home. It's Paul Werner. 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. Indeed. Yeah, everyone. It's a prerequisite, apparently, for a marketer 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, Susie and David Canyon. Yes, thanks for having me. I'm very excited. I got asked back for this very special episode. Yeah, Blake can make it. Today's fact is where we begin. Salt was sometimes used to pay soldiers in ancient Rome. So, this became known as solarium 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 paid with salt. They got coins and money too. But yeah, they would get paid in salt. Don't even think about it, you marketer.

I need real money. Sorry, Paul. I agree with that. Also, usually your facts of the day are completely mind-blowing and eye-opening. I mean, usually. I'm out of nowhere. But this is what I have to say. I knew this from my Latin class in 10th grade. You took Latin? I did. I did. Oh, my God.

So the teacher would start every class with an English word and trace the Latin roots. 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. So yeah, I guess Paul must have had a lot of 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, Yuri first, will have 60 seconds to pitch a very specific, but highly unlikely prediction for 2025. Then the rest of us, me, Susie, Paul, and everyone listening, will decide if we are going to invest in it.

it. Believe in it. That's what it means. Do you believe in the prediction? Then we move to the next contestant and repeat. So Susie will be next and me, Yuri and Paul will become the new panel. 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. It's 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. Susie, 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. Today's might be the next one. What's that? Today's might be the next one. It could be. You do have a great one for today. Yes. Let's see. But we'll start with Yuri first. Today's prediction, Yuri. All right. So my prediction is OpenAI will buy Snapchat. I took the highly unlikely direction seriously.

A 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. Wow. Cheap for OpenAI. It has tons of user information, has tons of influencer data that OpenAI can use to train its models and 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 sort of play space and technology.

where, you know, try on technology. So all of that, I think, makes it really kind of an interesting purchase. Yeah. Do they buy it and keep it standalone? Do you think keep the brands or do you think they eventually fold it into something with open AI branding? I'd assume they keep it standalone. I mean, they have many hundred millions of users right now. So, I mean, Snap has many hundred million, hundreds of millions of users. So, yeah.

It's a lot of brand equity to keep. - Yui, 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 a especially 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. You've got threads, they're expected to grow the most, 23% users, 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, negative 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. Still have great influencer data and user data. Yeah. Makes sense. 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. Susie, you invented the half point, didn't you? I sure did. I'm kind of 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? I will say that I...

Was a lot more convinced when Yuri agreed that it would be kept separate because I don't think it would work otherwise or wouldn't work as well. Yeah. So can I invent the three-quarter point? Absolutely not. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Susie was pushing it alone. That's why she got banned for a year. All right. I'm in. I'm in. Full point. Full point. Full point.

My goodness. Susie. I didn't know I was banned. I thought I'd been in all the episodes. I'm very upset now. Yeah, we thought it best not to tell you the real reason. Welcome back. Oh my gosh. Did I really miss any? No, no. We didn't do any while you were out. No. Absolutely not. 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 sort 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. Yeah.

Yeah, my issue is also that my quarter point deduction would have 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 okay hey half a point is a support it is yeah two hours just two that's two of three uh for yuri so for uh two points total for yuri it's a good start to the round i appreciate the support suzy oh my god the pressure's on because i didn't realize i had not been invited back since some of my crazy predictions no it wasn't the only reason there was other behavioral issues but

The tomatoes speak? Mainly, yes. 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 stable coin 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 decade,

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. 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 you're sort of, 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 for.

So the retailer is kind of making money off of all of that sort of 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. 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 this also, like the stable coin goes together very well with rewards and loyalty. And it all sort of

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.

often and stablecoin that is embedded in the already existing digital wallet, so lower sort of barrier to entry for folks, would connect online and in-store in a much easier way. And you could sort of, you know, 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. You know, it's like QR codes are 15 years old and we needed a reason for people to start using them. And I think stable coin, 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 three dollars pay with a credit card. It's 325. So I think consumers will start to think about this and start

to really invest in a non-credit card payment option. So stablecoin for folks is a type of cryptocurrency and it's... Pegged to a dollar. Exactly. You're trying to reduce volatility by pegging it to something like the US dollar. Exactly right. Yuri, what do you think? I'm going to give it a point because I actually think it makes a ton of sense for Starbucks. Not only is it reduced those transaction fees, I think it gives...

Easy access to non-bank people. Now, Starbucks has a more fluent 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. How is this going to be received by the average consumer, though? Would this be something that they can just start using?

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?

Well, that's a great question, Marcus. PayPal, amongst others, like digital wallets already have their own stable coins. So consumers are starting to become more familiar with it. There is a bill in the legislation talking about crypto and stable coin is 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...

in the ecosystem of payments because the legislative body is talking about it and there will be safety mechanisms. 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 sort of that people may not quite understand it, but they're so accustomed to hearing about it that they will be more open to figuring it out. And if it's within the, 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 stable, like it's a different sort of

thing that you're putting, an elusive thing that you're putting into your wallet. Yeah. Yeah, them having the loyalty folks through the app already, I think it's a huge leg up here. I think

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. I was reading about, we wrote about the green dot assist, the new gen AI assistance where baristas can use, which they access through tablets, but baristas can use it to reduce service time, streamline operations, basically ask questions about

different kind of specialty menu items or whatnot. So I think they are trying to find ways to make things more streamlined, happen faster, and this would do that, a faster transaction. So it's probably on their radar. I would say, I'm going to say half a point, I think six months, no, but half a point. Paul? I have to say, I'm a little skeptical of this. It's 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. Yeah, it's very hungry. 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 think...

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 like a dot-com bust and boom kind of cycle. But I just see a lot of volatility, a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of, you know, just risk factors.

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

Do you think people will be able to separate that in their mind? Do you think that they're going to be able to say... 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 $100. Tomorrow, it's $500. The next day, it's $300. And so that's impossible for a retailer to take. 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 um even if even if the media has gone out of its way to make the distinction i don't i just don't know if it's really catching on yeah i i think both is true because because i think people are going to have a hard time um 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 Susie, to your point, it does seem that there's a big push to try and explain that to folks, that stablecoins are different. So, Paul, you're out. I'm out. I'm half in. With all due respect, Susie, because, again, I think there's a lot of things about this that will happen eventually. Paul said, with no due respect, I'm out of here.

uh so suzy point and a half paul can you beat it what's yours well so mine is that paramount will be the next media company to follow in the footsteps of comcast slash nbc universal and warner brothers discovery okay in spinning off its cable assets okay this is um

I think to call it unlikely is maybe using false modesty because like this is going to happen. Oh, I don't, I don't, I mean it's inevitable and it's not because like I came up with a genius prediction. It's just because the way of the world in the TV universe is that audiences are, are going to streaming. There's no turning back that tide. And every one of these media companies is struggling to,

in general, but particularly with their linear TV assets. So it's kind of a no-brainer, and this is something that would have 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, 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 no brainer, 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 like BT, Nickelodeon, MTV, and the Paramount TV entertainment networks, but probably not CBS, the flagship network, or CBS News or CBS Sports. So Paul, how does that work? Each individual asset sort of goes out into the world for people to bid on, or are they just...

Like, are they divesting or are they separating the company into two? Like how GE separated? It's more likely to be a divestment of the whatever...

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, you know, we're having a clearance sale. You can buy MTV or you can buy Nickelodeon. It's more likely to be like 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 like selling it off and walking away completely, but they're divesting, you know, a great part of their interest in those businesses. 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. Full point.

Same. Susie? 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,

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. You know, 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, TV.

There's still an audience that's not subscribed. So maybe you would do it in a way that caters to, you know, 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, you know, 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. 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. 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.

I don't think he's changing. 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, Susie, maybe it doesn't happen until next year. But I don't think we're talking about like two, three years down the line. I think we're talking about a six to 12 month time frame. All right, Susie, you in? With that second piece of explanation, yeah. Full point?

Well, yeah, if we're hedging, they're going to announce it 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. All right. Full point. Well played. All right. Paul gets the full three for his. Yuri gets two for his, which was opening Iowa by a snap. And Susie...

It's okay. Lost again. You'll just have to ask me to come again. Point and a half. No, probably not. Third place will not get invited back. The Starbucks will accept slash launch their own stable coin. 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 for today's episode. Thank you so much to my guests. Thank you to Susie. Thanks for having me. Of course. Thank you to Yuri. Great to be here. And Paul. Thanks as always. 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 Synth.

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.