The Weekly Listen: Is ad fatigue actually getting worse, how GenAI might change our in-car experience, and more

On today's podcast episode, we discuss just how bad ad fatigue is getting, how GenAI might revolutionize the in-car experience, the most interesting ways that out-of-home advertising is evolving, if niche video streaming services can gain share, how much the “American Dream” costs, and more. Tune in to the discussion with Senior Director of Podcasts and host Marcus Johnson, Senior Analyst Ross Benes, Director of Reports Editing Rahul Chadha, and Vice President of Briefings Stephanie Taglianetti.

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

Episode Transcript:

Marcus Johnson:

Hello everyone and thanks for hanging out with us for the Behind the Numbers Weekly Listen, an eMarketer podcast. This is the Friday show, that is convinced that coffee baristas are just making up drink names. They just shout out anything?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Such as?

Marcus Johnson:

Tall, non-fat, Mocha, Choco Latte, Yah-Yah real lady Marmalade.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, that's a real drink you could order.

Marcus Johnson:

With soy film.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Soy film?

Marcus Johnson:

Sorry. With soy foam.

Rahul Chadha:

I like film better.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Just a film of soy. Delicious.

Marcus Johnson:

Just coming up with all kinds of stuff. Is anyone checking that these are real? Exactly. I'm on to something.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Got bigger fish to fry over here.

Marcus Johnson:

I need a life is what you're saying. And it's true.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

In a nicer way, yes.

Marcus Johnson:

That's a fair point. I'm your host Marcus Johnson. In today's show, is ad fatigue getting worse?

Rahul Chadha:

I mean, I think people, consumers too, understand, I mean it's been historically true that there's just a trade-off When you're consuming media, you're going to see ads. That goes back to print newspapers.

Marcus Johnson:

Will generative AI revolutionize the in-car experience?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I don't know if this is going to be quite the revolution that's being promised, which I think is typical of anything related to smarter cars these days.

Marcus Johnson:

What's the most interesting way that out-of-home advertising is evolving?

Ross Benes:

There's all these other gadgets that have emerged for out-of-home, but the format that has driven home the money in the past is still the one that's driving the money home right now.

Marcus Johnson:

Will niche video streaming services gain share? And how much does the American dream cost?

Who do we have on today's episode? Three people. Let's meet them. We start with our Vice President of everything briefings. She's based in New Jersey. It's Stephanie Taglionetti.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Cheers, mate.

Marcus Johnson:

Hello there. We're also joined by Director of Reports Editing. He is now based in Maryland. We call him Rahul Chadha.

Rahul Chadha:

Hey Marcus, thanks for having me.

Marcus Johnson:

Hello fella. And we finally have our Senior Analyst who covers everything digital advertising and media. He's based just north of New York City. It's Ross Benes.

Ross Benes:

Hey Marcus.

Marcus Johnson:

Hey fella. So we've got the story. We've got a debate. We end with some random trivia. Let's get to it. We start of course with the story of the week.

Is ad fatigue getting worse? This is a question from Tom Ryan of RetailWire. He cites a new survey from ad indexing company AD-ID showing ad fatigue is influencing consumer behavior with six out of 10 US adults saying they are less likely to buy products or use services from companies that show the same ads repeatedly. So six in 10 folks saying that. Half of people, five in 10, had decided not to purchase product from a brand when they see ads too often. So gang, this is a question that comes up periodically, but we're revisiting it again. Is ad fatigue getting worse?

Ross Benes:

Well, it's getting worse for people who spend all their time on phones because they're not blocking ads at the same rate as people are spending their time on computer screens.

Marcus Johnson:

Okay.

Rahul Chadha:

I just feel like when you look at the environment that people are living in holistically consumers are just faced with ads on pretty much every front. Every retailer is adding retail media. There's burgeoning commerce media networks on travel and financial channels. It's like you can't even turn on any smart TV without getting hit with a bunch of ads that are incorporated into the operating system these days. And even on streaming services, I think, and Ross can speak to this too, consumers on ad tiers are more lucrative for the services than subscribers. So it's like they have an incentive to push ads on you there. Google search results are inundated with sponsored links. I mean it just goes on and on. I don't know how you could say it's getting better in terms of ad fatigue.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

And I don't know if it's necessarily getting worse just because I don't have comparative data in terms of sentiments now versus five years ago. But I do know that general annoyance just extends to advertising more broadly. My team, I think a week ago, just wrote a piece about how consumers are becoming fatigued with brand emails and text marketing. There was a survey they covered where 40% of US consumers said they felt overwhelmed by marketing content and then were unsubscribing from brand emails and texts at least once a week, which was higher than the global average of 25% of people who said they were doing the same. But again, I don't know if it's getting worse per se. It's definitely not getting better.

Marcus Johnson:

There's some other numbers on that as well because the question's like what's the worst that can happen? It's like, well, customers can break up with you.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, exactly.

Marcus Johnson:

Some numbers here. 61% of Americans unsubscribed from three or more retail brands in the past three months due to too many marketing messages. And this was from Optimove who had this data. I think people are less tolerant with ads because they can second screen, because our attention spans are becoming shorter and shorter and people before used to have a bit more patience, a bit more tolerance. But now I think because if an ad does come on your laptop whilst you're streaming something, you can pull out your phone or you can whilst it comes up on whatever device, you can pivot to another one and then to another one. And even now with the advent of short video, if there's three hours worth of ads, you can just turn your phone on and watch a short video or watch a TikTok or watch a whatever it is. So I do think people are becoming less tolerant, more frustrated, and more expectant with what they are hoping to see from advertisers.

Rahul Chadha:

I think too, the increased prevalence of ads on all these different media channels, however you want to describe them, trains people, especially in the attention economy, to ignore them.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yes.

Rahul Chadha:

It's like my eye naturally just unconsciously glosses over ads if I'm scrolling through the New York Times app or if a pop-up obscures the screen for a minute on a desktop, I'm just instinctively headed for the X in the upper right corner and that's about as much attention as I paid to an add anymore.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Totally. We are trained to be able to press skip or X or even on TikTok to just hover and say, "I'm not interested. This is excessive," when you're seeing stuff.

Ross Benes:

Yeah. That's part of the reason why ad price will be higher when there's fewer ads. Like if you're like on a TV or streaming, if you're running 10 minutes of ads per hour, the amount you're going to charge per unit's going to be much less than if you're only having a minute per hour because that minute per hour is harder to ignore when there's just less of it.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah, the channels, there are certain channels that are more irritating than others as well. This is also from the Optimove survey. The channels that are most irritating when it comes to being bombarded by marketing messages, text messages, and email, were joint first, with nearly four in 10 people saying it was the most irritating being inundated with that flavor of ad, assuming because they're the most personal and they feel the most invasive because those are very personal spaces where ads are popping up.

Ross Benes:

Well, if you're listening to this podcast, you may be getting an email from me to sign up for a webinar next week though.

Marcus Johnson:

Just ignore it.

Rahul Chadha:

I mean I think people, consumers too understand, I mean it's historically true that there's just a trade-off when you're consuming media, you're going to see ads. That goes back to print newspapers and like-

Ross Benes:

Especially free media.

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, maybe before that. But marketing messages, creating a distinction between them and paid advertising, yeah, people definitely have a lower tolerance for those things in their email and text streams if you're over messaging people. Yeah, it's a step too far for sure and they're less tolerant. But I think people are, kind of hard to make apples to apples comparison, less put off by ads on Hulu or something. It's just cost of watching streaming services or whatever.

Ross Benes:

But that doesn't mean they don't get annoyed by problems with ad frequency. I don't know what Skyrizi is, but I feel like it's for some skin disorder that I don't have and I'm like, I think? I have no idea, but I've seen the ad for that thing a million times.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, but I think what's interesting, that was one of the more interesting points, is that perceived spam of ads influences your perception of that brand. You're like, "Oh my God, this brand is so annoying. I see this ad, whatever that is for this."

Rahul Chadha:

Totally.

Ross Benes:

I mean I remember the word Skyrizi, I just have no idea what it does. I don't know. Maybe that's considered a success from their perspective.

Marcus Johnson:

So you touched on something interesting, which is there are different types of ways to be annoyed with ads and suffer from ad fatigue. One is the length of ads. So do you have to sit through what used to be however many minutes per hour when you're watching the TV and whether now you have to watch a certain number of minutes worth of ads per however long you've been watching your streaming service, you've got the number of ads that are being packed into a space back to back.

But you also have the frequency of ads, of the same ads, reappearing. And as I mentioned, there was six in 10 people who said they're less likely to buy from someone when they keep getting shown the same ad. There were certain demographics more likely to express frustration with repetitive ads. Adults under the age of 55, men, and parents of kids younger than 18 as well. I thought an interesting question was posed from the CEO of AD-ID who did this survey, Nada Bradbury, was saying the next step is knowing how many times is too many? And Ross, as someone who pays attention to video streaming, it doesn't seem like CTV world has any idea of how many is too many. And if they do, it doesn't seem like they're abiding by that rule.

Ross Benes:

Well, yeah, I would say with the second thing you said, even if they do figure it out, they're not really abiding by it. Even if they're trying to, there's always some sort of technical mishap that leads you to see the same Geico ad 15 times over the course of a movie on a free streaming service.

Marcus Johnson:

All right folks, that's where we leave the story of the week for today. Let's move now to our debate of the week. Today's segment, make the case.

Where our panel, Rahul, Ross, and Stephanie give the for and against arguments for each of the following questions from three news stories. Two folks face off per question. And the following takes don't reflect the analyst's personal views. Their job is to just present the best case regardless and offer objective analysis. So keep your real feelings to yourself.

Question one. Will generative AI revolutionize the in-car experience? Gen AI is coming for your car writes ina Fried of Axios explaining that Qualcomm just announced it is bringing its next gen Orion processor to its in-car computer systems for both entertainment and automated driving. The article notes that this will add a tremendous amount of computing power inside the car, helping with everything from finding the nearest cheap gas to pointing out landmarks to understanding a dashboard warning light. The new car chips will be sampling next year, hitting the road after that. Okay, nothing on that pun. Fair enough. Move on.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Missed it.

Marcus Johnson:

Will generative AI revolutionize the in-car experience? Rahul versus Stephanie. Rahul is arguing that Gen AI will revolutionize the in-car experience. 60 seconds on the clock. Thank you, V, who edits the show. Make the case?

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, I mean this is the closest thing to a captive audience that an AI powered assistant can have. If you get bad results from Siri on your iPhone, you can always actually interface with the screen, Google something, type something out on your keyboard. That's a lot harder in a car when you're hopefully using our hands to steer it and stuff like that. And I think auto manufacturers are motivated to get AI assistants right in their infotainment systems because they can gather valuable data on users to, you guessed it, sell them ads at the end of the day or information that helps sell ads. But I do think it's likely to take OEMs a fair bit of time to overcome the design issues and technological limitations that they face before AI assistants in cars will be commonplace.

Marcus Johnson:

Steve is arguing gen AI won't revolutionize the in-car experience. Make the case.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Before I start, Victoria, can you please insert cricket sounds after Marcus's pun earlier.

Marcus Johnson:

No need. People listening got it.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Great.

Marcus Johnson:

Forget you guys.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

All right, I'm ready to roll the timer.

So I don't know if this is going to be quite the revolution that's being promised, which I think is typical of anything related to smarter cars these days, like Elon Musk overblowing when driverless cars are going to be ready for the road. These tech enhancements seem to be overhyped well before they're ready to make that huge impact. So I'm imagining this to be more of a slow burn.

The idea is great, and then you think about all the back end stuff that has to happen and it gets longer and longer and longer before it becomes a reality. So you need the chips to be ready, which Qualcomm said will be maybe in 2025 sometime. Then you need the cars with the chips to hit the road, so that'll come later. Then you need people to buy the cars that have the chips and that'll take some time. Then you need people to be gen AI users, which is definitely happening. I think there's going to be 116 million by 2025 from our estimates. But anyway, that's just to say that I don't think what Qualcomm is talking about releasing is all that different from the ways that people are using voice assistants for search right now. So it seems like it'll make an experience that many people are already doing a little bit better maybe in five years time or more.

Marcus Johnson:

In five years. Oh wow. Okay. I think in five years it could be quite different. I think it's the scientist and futurist Roy Amara, his quote of ,"People tend to overestimate the short term and underestimate the long term." And I think that the article was noting some potentially impactful new gen AI features. I think better rerouting capabilities, which doesn't sound like a lot, but if you can get real time construction where they put cones out and do work on roads during the night.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Totally.

Marcus Johnson:

Helping drivers find multiple things at the same stop. So if you want to stop for gas, you also want to stop for coffee. Can you combine those two things into one? Purchasing tickets to a museum after confirming its hours. So using your voice to as you are driving along, I'm heading somewhere, can you also grab me tickets to the thing? There was one concept video showing a car's AI assistant telling the driver, "There's no parking nearby, unload here, and I'll park the car." Again like that much further down the road. But I do think it could change the way that quite significantly, how we interact with different services whilst we're on the road.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

It's a matter of when for me. When is this going to be our reality?

Marcus Johnson:

Yes. Yeah, exactly. I mean maybe people will become more used to doing things like that now that Apple intelligence is kind of almost here. I mean the Siri portion of it, the more advanced portion of it will be out in next March, but maybe that gets people more used to asking more of their devices or of generative AI across multiple parts of their life.

Let's move to round two, question two, I should say, the most interesting way that out-of-home advertising is evolving is this topic. Ross versus Stephanie. Next year out-of-home advertising will be the only traditional media channel still growing, notching up 4% compared to the declines across radio, print, and TV that we're expecting. That said, it's the digital part of out-of-home that is driving it. Traditionals out-of-home share, two-thirds of a total will fall by a point. Digital will be going up. Out-of-home advertising is evolving though as Zach Stanborn notes. Some like Bed Bath and Toys "R" Us are betting the brick and mortar locations will serve as 3D billboards driving awareness. Others are re-imagining the scale of out-of-home with billboard sized buildings like Las Vegas' The Sphere, the city's largest billboard that's also a concept venue. The question is what is the most interesting way that out-of-home advertising is evolving? Ross is making his case first. The most interesting way that out-of-home advertising is evolving to you Ross is what?

Ross Benes:

Through all the change, the tried and true format of billboards us still receiving most of the revenue. So out-of-home it looks much different now than it did 10 years ago. It's a lot more digital, there's more programmatic buying and so on and so forth. But billboards still receive about three-fourths of total out-of-home revenues, which is actually slightly higher than their pre pandemic share. So billboards, there's all these other gadgets that have emerged for out-of-home, but the format that has driven home the money in the past is still the one that's driving the money home right now.

Marcus Johnson:

And this is traditional static paper and digital or one or the other?

Ross Benes:

Well, everything.

Marcus Johnson:

Everything.

Ross Benes:

So I mean billboards are digital. They're also static. If you go to the OAAA figures and you look at the share of total out of home revenue by format, billboards is still the largest category. Billboards have certainly evolved as well, but they just show that's where the attention is. Roadside billboards still receive a lot more attention than all the street furniture or stuff that people have put inside of their offices.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah.

Rahul Chadha:

Ross, I'm curious too, is the black box nature of programmatic mean that people might just be making programmatic ad buys and not aware that their ads are ending up on billboards?

Ross Benes:

No, I don't think that's happening as much. I mean, programmatic out-of-home is very tiny. Most out-of-home is still not bought that way. So when money's going to billboards it's usually intentionally purchased that way. It's just out of all the out-of-home formats, those are the ones that are still receiving the most attention. Roadside traffic hasn't declined, even though a lot of other behaviors have changed since COVID.

Marcus Johnson:

And also the digital ones are expensive.

Ross Benes:

Yeah, they make sense in Times Square. They don't make sense in the rural Midwest.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. Yeah.

Ross Benes:

It's hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and maintain some of those screens.

Marcus Johnson:

Right, right. Yeah, makes sense too.

Ross Benes:

You need to have a lot of people walking by them.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah, right. Stephanie, to you the most interesting way that out-of-home advertising is evolving is what?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, so I think the interesting thing is that it's going increasingly digital and seems to be getting more interactive. This is a good thing. I think Sara Lebow just posted some data about digital out-of-home ads drive action from almost 80% of the people who see them.

Marcus Johnson:

Wow.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

And what that means is 76 or more percent of digital out-of-home viewers took an action after seeing the ads, such as watching a video from the brand, visiting a restaurant, purchasing in store, having a word of mouth conversation about the brand, or visiting the store. And then I mentioned these more interactive examples that are paying off for brands. For example, the NBA had a digital out-of-home campaign for its 75th anniversary playoff that had fan tweets sort of interacted with the ad and it increased tune in intentions by 25% and boosted brand awareness by 7% according to it. And then there was this example from CBS, which was the hashtag beauty unaltered campaign. So this was in Times Square New York City. People could upload an unedited selfie with the hashtag beauty unaltered and then they were displayed on digital billboards every 10 seconds and that generated 3.6 billion impressions for CBS.

Marcus Johnson:

Was the NBA example the digital floor, the video floor, as it's called.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

It was a dynamic ad that had game countdowns and scores and then fan tweets.

Marcus Johnson:

Oh, okay.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson:

Because there was one example, a Fast Company article from Nate Berg pointing to a German company, ASB GlassFloor, who have a new product called the video floor, which was featured at the NBA All-Star Game earlier this year. And the floor, basically it becomes a billboard. So it was an entire basketball court made out of tempered safety glass and it had 27 million pixel LED display, which can display graphics, video replays, player tracking animations, and you guessed it, ads. And so they kind of flicked between Ruffles and Starry and AT&T and the floor was a big screen.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, I think that kind of stuff is really awesome where it feels like you're engaging with it directly.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. I thought it was really interesting. And digital is driving things, as I said, two-thirds of out-of-home is still traditional, that's going to fall by a point next year, but digital out-of-home, the other third, is growing by 12 points, which is really impressive, giving total out-of-home a 4% growth rate for next year.

All right folks, question three. Ross versus Rahul. Will niche video streaming services gain share? QSR Chick-fil-A is reportedly launching its own streaming platform, writes Rich Johnson of The Hill. Peter White of Deadline reports that the chain is working with several producers to create family-friendly particularly unscripted shows to stream on its own channel and may also license and acquire existing shows. The Deadline article notes that Chick-fil-A is the latest company outside of the entertainment world to move into making its own originals, joining ride-hailing service Lyft, which produced a game show, and home-sharing giant Airbnb, which produced the MTV documentary Gay Chorus Deep South. You also have horror-focused services like Shudder, Anime hub Crunchyroll, Victory Plus launched by NHL team the Dallas Stars, etc, etc. The question is will niche video streaming services gain share. Ross is arguing that it will. Make the case

Ross Benes:

Many of the bigger streaming services are starting to tap out as far as how big their audiences can get, while there's more room for many of these niche streaming services to grow. And the niche services tend to be cheaper, so they're less prone to cancellation because they're also already appealing to super fans. They have small audiences but those who subscribe tend to be pretty loyal. So I think people's niche interests are going to stick around and keep those services successful while the huge services start to consolidate to gain profitability.

Marcus Johnson:

Rahul. Niche streaming services won't gain share. Make the case.

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, I think it's really difficult for ad-supported niche services to get the scale that would make them appealing to ad buyers. It's a weirdly self-fulfilling prophecy if you're a niche, I take it from that perspective, and the ones that are depending on subscription fees are competing with an ever-growing number of other streamers. I do think at some point every household hits a limit in terms of the video services they're willing to pay for.

I think the other challenge honestly, niche streamers are facing is they're not just competing with streaming services. They have to battle things like social media and content creators who can maybe offer similar niche content for free or comparatively low cost. But I actually do have a question for Ross about the concept that niche services. He wrote recently about bundling, how bundling is kind of becoming something that's sort of reproducing the traditional cable package but among streaming services and I was curious what his thoughts were about niche streamers and bundling. Do you think there was some kind of prospect for them from that perspective?

Ross Benes:

Some of them already do. Shudder is with AMC+. They're owned by the same people. So I think you'll see some bundling if there's shared ownership. But it makes sense why a Peacock user and a Netflix user may be the same type of person, but Big 10 Plus and anime services might not go together. So it'll go where there's shared ownership or shared interest, but some of these niche services are completely different than another niche service and it would just be a weird format to throw them together.

Marcus Johnson:

So we probably should have started with this, but Ross, what does niche mean? Because you've got-

Ross Benes:

Oh yeah, that's in the eye of the beholder, right?

Marcus Johnson:

Right. You've got small players like Pluto TV, they're smaller than Peacock or Max or Roku Channel or Tubi or whatever, but they're bigger than someone like a Shudder. So I mean, what would you say the definition is there?

Ross Benes:

Well, I don't think niche applies to the audience size necessarily. Pluto TV has sports and crime and drama and comedy. There's kind of everything, all types of programming are on there. A niche service tends to focus on one type of programming, like only anime is on Crunchyroll, only horror is on Shudder. Gotham Sports only has New York regional sports networks. So it's like all one thing, going hard on that one thing. So that's what makes them different than having few subscribers.

Marcus Johnson:

There was some data on this from Antenna. Over the last two years, niche streaming services have gained ground. I couldn't see the definition in this, but they say the share of folks who subscribe to a paid for specialty service as it was called.

Ross Benes:

Yeah, specialty might be a better word for it.

Marcus Johnson:

Okay. Yeah, they went from 19% to 31% from Q2 of 2022 to 2024. Most of those 66% subscribe to just one specialty service, but 20% were signed up to two, and 15% have three or more.

The Chick-fil-A thing I think is interesting because it's going to be interesting to see what kind of content they have on there. One idea is making a show about yourself, which sounds like it wouldn't work, but there was in the article from Mr. Johnson of The Hill, he was pointing out that in 1999, British documentary series Boiling Points that followed then unknown Chef Gordon Ramsay as he opened his first restaurant in London and shared with the world his explosive temper in the kitchen. So I don't know, maybe it has a positive effect for the brand if you show the inner workings of your company. So maybe that's one piece of content that they create but for now it seems like they're going the unscripted family friendly route.

All right folks, that's all what got time for for the debate of the week. We move now to the final segment of today's show. It's dinner party data.

This is the part where we tell you about the most interesting thing we've learned this week.

Let's kick things off with Ross.

Ross Benes:

So depending on when you listen to this, the New York Yankees maybe have already eliminated from the World Series.

Marcus Johnson:

Probably.

Ross Benes:

And they're in one of their longest World Series droughts ever. So I just kind of looked up how often do the Yankees usually win the World Series? So they launched as a franchise in 1903 as the Highlanders. They became the Yankees in 1913. They went 20 years after their founding before their first World Series in 1923. But basically over their 121 years, they have won a World Series on average every 4.5 years. Right now it's been 15 years and counting since they last won the World Series in 2009. So they basically are tied for one of the longest streaks they've ever had. The longest one they've had since their opening from 1903 to 1923 is they went 18 seasons from 1978 to 1996. And that's when they started their super team with Jeter and all those folks. So just three seasons short of tying the all time drought and five seasons short of tying their biggest drought since their founding. So the Yankees don't usually go this long between World Series wins.

Marcus Johnson:

It's frightening how many they've won. I knew that they had the most, but when I looked up that they had 27, and the second place Cardinals, St. Louis Cardinals had 11. They have three times more nearly than second place.

Ross Benes:

A lot of it though, it's like if you look at the '30s to the '50s, there's probably more than 15 of those 27 in that period. They won every year in the '40s and '50s.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. That's how I feel about the Celtics. They just won a bunch when there were like 12 teams in the league. Do they really count? No. All right folks. Stephanie?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

So I really like looking up niche holidays for my fun facts of the week.

Marcus Johnson:

You do.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I bet you didn't know that this Saturday is National Deviled Eggs Day.

Marcus Johnson:

Okay.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I have some facts about both this very popular party snack, and eggs generally. What a perfect snack, by the way, if you're going to a Halloween party, to bring a little deviled egg treat. Come on, Marcus, focus your eyes forward.

Marcus Johnson:

Sorry. Yeah, I'm paying attention. I didn't see this coming. I should have.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I know. It keeps it interesting. So the deviled egg originated in ancient Rome and the term deviled is used all the way back since the 18th century. It used as most often to describe spicy foods. And here's an interesting description, including eggs prepared with mustard, peppered, or other ingredients stuffed in the yolk cavity. Have you ever heard this in a recipe? The yolk cavity. Sounds quite disgusting to me.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah, thanks for sharing.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

You're so welcome. The average hen lays 300 to 325 eggs per year and it takes a chicken 24 to 26 hours a day to produce a single egg.

Ross Benes:

One a day?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah. I always thought it would be more than that because I've had visions of owning property in the Catskills and having a chicken coop, but one egg per day is what you get from a single chicken.

Marcus Johnson:

Not a great return.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Right. That's what I thought. So there you go. Some egg facts for you.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. I thought we were going to have to cut most of that when you started, but it can be something. I'll let Victoria decide. Rahul, how about you?

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, I stumbled across what I thought was an interesting piece of data earlier in October. The pest control company Orkin named Chicago the Rattiest City in America. So the Windy City beat out number two LA and number three New York City for the dubious honor. I was surprised that NYC is low ranking. This list was compiled by tracking new residential rodent treatments that Orking fielded in 50 cities. Greensboro, South Carolina was the least rattiest city by Orkin's measure, and I don't know if people in New York City know this too, but Mayor Eric Adams named the city's first rat czar back in the April of last year. Her official title is the Director of Rodent Mitigation and she's pulling down a cool 155K a year to try to eliminate rats in the city.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Wow.

Rahul Chadha:

Wow.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

That's a very stable occupation.

Marcus Johnson:

I would've taken that job. I think I have a solution. I think it's pretty difficult, it's a pretty complex solution to it, so not everyone's going to be able to comprehend what I'm about to suggest. But I think maybe just if you got rid of all the litter, that might help. There's trash everywhere in New York. That might be why there are so many rats. Just a thought.

Rahul Chadha:

Aren't they trying to like-

Ross Benes:

Yeah, they're trying to use trash cans. It's really innovative.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Wow. Trying to use trash cans for trash. Can you believe it? I've been to cities where there are not even trash cans publicly available and you're expected to walk around with your own little personal trash bag and dispose of it.

Rahul Chadha:

Oh yeah. That was the chore I experienced in Japan. It's like there are no public trash cans there.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

There's no public trash cans.

Rahul Chadha:

You just have to hike around with orange peels in your pockets and stuff.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

That's right.

Ross Benes:

About that Orkin data. So that's based on where they're treating. I would throw this out there. Chicago may be treating the rats more than New York City. I think New York City, they just let the rats live. No one's killing them. There's more rats.

Rahul Chadha:

I agree. I feel like-

Ross Benes:

Nothing's happening about the rats.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

There's more rats and no action.

Rahul Chadha:

There's a detente. There's a truce declared between New Yorkers and the rats. Each lets the other just live.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah, we've just accepted this is a shared city of two species.

Marcus Johnson:

Don't make Stephanie the rat czar.

Rahul Chadha:

I think one of the things that was kind of horrific about the woman's background, I think her name is Kathleen Corradi, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, is that she has a background in education. She was a school teacher and I don't know what I'm supposed to draw from that, like her experience is in education and they found her the best person to exterminate rats in the city.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah, I mean, she's as good as anyone. Just clean up the trash.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Marcus, I think you have a shot.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. Honestly, next time you're in New York, look around. There is no moment, I noticed this recently, which is, I'm surprised I didn't notice it in all the years I lived there, but there's no point when you're in New York that you can't see litter on the floor. Multiple. At no point, the whole time you're there, you are always within eye shot of a piece of litter. That's the problem. There you go. Kathy, I solved it for you.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson:

Shout out to Pizza Rat.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Ah. And I'm friends with Buddy the Rat. If you've ever seen Buddy the Rat on TikTok or Instagram. I know him personally. Friend of mine.

Marcus Johnson:

This is an animal?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

This is a man who dresses like a rat in New York City and is quite famous on social media.

Marcus Johnson:

Friend of yours.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson:

All right.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Buddy the Rat.

Marcus Johnson:

We'll unpack that after the show.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yeah.

Marcus Johnson:

All right, I've got one for you real quick. How much does the American dream cost? Any guesses?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

It is the second-largest mall in America. Anybody know what the price tag is?

Ross Benes:

What the price tag on that mall is? Oh God. $5 billion.

Marcus Johnson:

Not talking about the mall. Cheeky. The American life, the perfect American lifestyle.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

It's cost of your happiness and joy.

Rahul Chadha:

If we're factoring in college, are we talking about college education for two kids, a house, a car?

Marcus Johnson:

The whole dream.

Rahul Chadha:

5 million.

Ross Benes:

It depends where you live too.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

All in.

Marcus Johnson:

What does all in mean? That's not a number.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

No, I'm asking you. All in for lifetime of American dream?

Marcus Johnson:

Oh, yeah, yeah. All in for the whole, yeah. Lifetime cost.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

$5 million.

Marcus Johnson:

You just copied Rahul. What the hell? Ross?

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Is that what you said, Rahul?

Rahul Chadha:

Yeah, but I'm going to go Price Is Right, 5.1 million.

Marcus Johnson:

Well played. Ross?

Ross Benes:

Well, not everywhere is expensive as where we live, so I'm going to go lower and say like 2 million bucks.

Marcus Johnson:

Okay. The fact that you guys are even guessing in the millions I think suggests that there's an issue with the American dream that you should need millions of dollars to achieve what everyone in the country is trying to achieve. So fascinating recent Visual Capitalist article from Dorothy Neufeld broke down each aspect of the American dream by their lifetime cost as of 2024. The top three most expensive parts of the American dream retirement. Number one, 1.6 million just for retirement, which was the recommended minimum savings for 20 years of retirement. Owning a home, that was the second most expensive. You're going to need about $930,000 to own a home. That's based on buying an existing single-family home with a 30-year mortgage, including 20% down.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

What are we already at, like 3 million now?

Marcus Johnson:

Basically. Yep.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Yep.

Marcus Johnson:

And yeah, 2.5. And raising kids to the age of 18 and paying for four years at a public college would cost a total of $830,000. Then you're also going to need to own a car. That's $800,000 worth of payments, not including fuel or maintenance. A Vacation once a year from ages 22 to 84, that's 180 grand. A wedding? That's $44,000, ceremony, reception, engagement ring. 37,000 to own a dog and a cat. And 8,000 for the funeral. So that would bring the total cost of the American dream to a simple $4.4 million.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Wow.

Marcus Johnson:

So you guys weren't too far off. You'll be pleased to know that that would exceed the average lifetime salaries of both men, 3.3 million, and women, 2.4 million, with bachelor's degrees. It's not attainable for anyone.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

So it's not attainable in your entire life.

Rahul Chadha:

I mean, you're talking to two people who, or at least two people, I don't know about Stephanie, who are paying for daycare. So it's not surprising to me.

Marcus Johnson:

Yeah. On the cost of-

Ross Benes:

The cost of the dog sound kind of high.

Marcus Johnson:

On the cost of a home, given the surging cost of home prices, three out of every four US households, three in four, are unable to afford a median priced home in 2024. And on the cost of kids, one-third of Americans under the age of 50 who don't have kids cite affordability concerns as a major reason for not having them, in part because the average cost of college tuition has climbed 750% since 1963, after adjusting for inflation.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

Woof.

Marcus Johnson:

I'm going back to England at the end of November if anyone wants to join me. You're welcome to join.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I'll be there in April.

Marcus Johnson:

You can pursue the British dream. No, I won't be there. I'll be gone. Anyway, that's all we've got time for for this episode. Have a good trip. Thank you so much to my guests. Thank you to Stephanie, who will be in England in April.

Stephanie Taglianetti:

I will be in England in April. Thank you, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson:

Of course. Thank you to Rahul.

Rahul Chadha:

Thanks very much, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson:

Thank you to Ross.

Ross Benes:

Thanks, Marcus.

Marcus Johnson:

I'm so depressed. Thank you to Victoria who edits the show. Stuart runs the team. Sophie does our social media. And to Lance as well, who helps out with the show on Fridays. Thank you to everyone for listening in, and we hope to see you on Monday for the Behind the Numbers Daily, an eMarketer podcast. Happiest of weekends.