What are they frustrated about?

Yeah.

So look, the Super Bowl was not that long ago where the Super Bowl was literally exclusively on broadcast TV.

So the legacy model of TV economics still leans this way where you have all of these affiliates that pay a what it's the lingo is a reverse retrans fee but it's in essence a fee to the parent network so in Disney's case that's the ABC and obviously in NBC's case NBC Fox broadcast for Fox and then Skydance and CBS there is a fee paid there to get access to all of that program to become an affiliate of one of the parent networks that fee is is in a large way predicated on the cost that each of those companies is paying for sports the nfl being the biggest most expensive of all of them so the way this works is disney pays billions of dollars for football then it says to its affiliates we need help you guys pay some too like don't you like football on your air like you know and so they say okay and then they pay more money And then those affiliates negotiate with the pay TV providers of the world.

You see this from time to time where, you know, direct TV is going to blackout Sinclair and all of its local, you know, the networks across the country.

And so there is a fee that is negotiated between the pay TV provider and the affiliate company, which is called a retrans fee, not a reverse retrans fee that goes up and up and up every year.

And the reason it goes up and up and up every year is that the, affiliates have to pay more money back to the network so this is their time now to get more money and they basically say to direct tv don't you want sports on your air you know you gotta have your you know your local games or your national games depending on what what's going on here and so usually the pay tv providers say yes it's not worth us to get a thousand angry emails from you know There are Houston ABC affiliates who can't watch, you know, whatever sporting event is on.

And he said to me that, yes,

For more information, go to Previsible.io. That's Previsible, P-R-E-V-I-S-I-B-L-E.io.

Everybody was basically trying to be everything to everyone.

What usually happens is that doesn't work.

Like if you solve for everyone, you kind of solve for no one.

And so there will be more specialization by customer segment.

So like Bluefish, we're committed.

We only work with a

Fortune 500.

Five years from now, will search marketers spend more time optimizing for humans or AI agents?

I would be surprised if humans basically stop using the internet at all.

I think that there are definitely channels in particular that are not going away, like social, I think is a really good example where consumers are, are very happy with social experiences and, and their adoption rates and usage rates.

For more information, go to previsible.io. That's Previsible, P-R-E-V-I-S-I-B-L-E dot I-O.

But I definitely think that the, the split is going to shift quite a bit.

We will be using agents in ways that we can't fathom today, and search marketers and agentic marketers and the rest of the marketing teams will be solving for those applications.

So, you know, I, like, I always love when I see people have the, like, SEO versus AEO debate, you know, because of course, like e- everybody's wrong [laughs] you know? And so, you know, you sort of hold that line at your own peril.

Anytime we've seen a big, you know, marketing channel cycle on the internet, it has opened up sort of a new class of, of talent, a new class of companies, and then, and it's created opportunity for new players in the space, and I think we'll see the same thing here.

Which information source do you think will become more important in AI search over the next year?

Brand data.

Um, and what I mean by that is, like, actual data that is made for large language models that is structured, is syndicated, um, and is done so in a sophisticated, measured way.

For more information, go to previsible.io. That's Previsible, P-R-E-V-I-S-I-B-L-E dot I-O.

Especially, you know, going into the holiday season, we think that, that brands are, are going to really invest in, okay, what is our agentic customer journey? What are the tools in the kit to, to, you know, reach our customers as they move through that? And I think you're gonna see data, um, start to be a, a much more powerful tool than, than it was, you know, in 2025 and, and for part of 2026.

[outro music]

What's the biggest mistake brands make when trying to correct inaccurate information in the AI search?

exclusively focusing on third-party sources.

Very often, there's a lot you can do with first-party content, first-party data.

There's just a lot of first-party tools to close that gap.

We're seeing direct data feeds to models start to play a major role on the accuracy front, where the models are

For more information, go to Previsible.io. That's Previsible, P-R-E-V-I-S-I-B-L-E.io.

increasingly looking for high quality brand verified information that they are much more likely to treat as sort of the gospel truth versus, you know, angry guy on Reddit.

There's a lot that brands can do to take control of their AI accuracy once they have the right diagnostic.

From your perspective, and we've seen a variety of approaches to this when you're working with different businesses or clients, do you see the direction that AI search is going, that it is a channel, a discipline to be managed within? Or is it more of the spread out across the organization, each person's playing a different role and a component of it? So it's like how much of it is diffused versus concentrated into like one resource group?

Yeah, that's another good question, I think, because, you know, look, we think of both things as being true a little bit in that certainly, you know, AI is kind of a channel that's eating all the other channels, right? So it's not like it's kind of siloed.

There are multiple AI surfaces.

So, of course, there's kind of the AI native platforms like ChatGPT.

There's also generative search engines like Google Gemini.

There's Enterprise, Microsoft Copilot.

There's social AI, meta AI.

But from what you're seeing, what are some of those areas? Where should people be concerned with on inaccuracies?

So when those answers are wrong, though, how big a problem is that becoming for brands? And how are most companies even aware of what AI is saying about them if they're not using it to their advantage? It's such

an important question because I think AI sort of unfairly developed a reputation for being this kind of omniscient, sentient thing that just had perfect access to information.

And We know now that that's just not the case.

Ultimately, large language models are effectively trained on a sort of download of the internet.

And the internet is very often wrong.

And there's a whole host of low-quality content out there, some of which, by the way, was built by AI itself.

And the models are training on that stuff.

And again, I'm quite curious here, from all the conversations that you're having, what are large enterprises most concerned about right now when it comes to how their brands not only appear, but are represented inside those AI platforms?

Tony Romo was not there to head a CBS Sports address, and I asked, uh, Alex what he thinks the future for Romo and CBS is.

Yeah, I think Tony Romo has a close relationship with the leadership at CBS.

So if they do move on, um, I actually think it will be quite a difficult decision from a personal standpoint.

Uh, yeah, there's been a lot of report around, um, his, uh, lackluster announcing performance.

He's unprepared.

People are tired of his act, et cetera.

I have not heard that directly from any of the, um, leadership at CBS.

What do you see in the sports ownership shift, and what are the pluses and minuses of more PE money getting involved?

So each league has their own rules around private equity.

None of the four major U.S. sports leagues allow a private equity firm to own a majority league.

So we will have to see exactly how this deal is structured.

So even though Joshua Kushner runs Thrive Capital, Thrive Capital can put up to 20%-ish, 25% of the money for this ownership, but they're capped at that point.

And then the rest needs to be individual ownership.

Or, you know, potentially there could be other wealthy individuals that kick in a certain amount of money.

And again, maybe I'm the old guy on the porch, and like I said, I know a lot of people have made fun of him in recent years, and we all get old, but a lot of this today doesn't exist without Berman, right?

Tell us a little bit about that relationship.

Yeah, it's been sweet.

So we're going into our third year with Woodward, I believe.

And it's been phenomenal.

I mean, they have so many facilities, and we kind of show up at all of them.

Woodward Park City, obviously, is in our backyard, so we love that one a little bit more.

I might, just because I actually get to utilize it.

I don't know.

Alex, let me turn to you 'cause you've said this is creating a lot of ripples already throughout the media and telecom space.

Well, yeah, you pointed out the first one, which is Charter.

I mean, it's not usual that you get news that a company is doing a spin and then the, the, the share price, uh, of the company that rose the highest was not a company involved in the transaction whatsoever.

And yet that's what we saw with Charter, which was up at, earlier in the day, about 25%.

So the pair down that you've seen in Comcast is mirrored by Charter, in addition to both companies being well shorted, uh, as Tim just said.

I think it's also possible that investors, uh, have kind of become more sober with the M&A possibilities, at least in the near term.

Like, this transaction is going to take a year to complete.

Yeah.

And if you can feel that being on the ground there, sort of how how palpable like Roger Roger Goodell has somehow become like the star of Upfront Week.

Yeah, I mean, this issue of the NFL being sort of the centerpiece of upfront weeks is really the story of media.

It is a microcosm of the story of media, which is the legacy players holding on for dear life forever.

for fear that the big tech companies will barnstorm them and overrun them and send them into the world of non-relevant.

That is the story of media.

And so the NFL is this small piece of that, a fairly large piece in that they're the most popular programming on TV, but just a small piece of the world of media.

But what we're seeing is that the chapters of this story, like we're not in the beginning chapters anymore.

I have a Prime subscription, but it's a whole level of friction that I do think consumers have to deal with.

Kevin, can you play the next prediction because, uh, there's a paired prediction here.

Hey, this is Ben Mathis-Lilley, former Slate staff writer.

Uh, having been told about the previous prediction and having spent much of my time at Slate writing about the causes and effects of political polarization in the United States, uh, my prediction is that in the next 17 years, sometime in the next 17 years, some states will make youth tackle football mandatory.

And actually our next prediction is somewhat related to these two as well.

I'm Alex Sherman, CNBC's media and sports reporter, author of the CNBC Sport Newsletter.

Sign up at cnbc.com/sport.

It's free.

In the next 17 years, I'm betting on the rise of flag football.

The NBA has a lot more games.

Of course.

It's not apples to apples.

But I think the NFL realizedThink about the power of the NFL and the importance of the NFL to these media companies when it comes to not only advertising, but the, all the distribution deals.

Like, the NFL holds more weight by far than any other sport.

And so when they saw that the NBA got a huge increase on its deal, uh, the NFL realized, "You know what? I think we may have underpriced ourselves when we struck that deal in 2021." So I think that was sort of the, uh, straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the NFL saying, "We really should, uh, trigger this opt-out clause." And then that morphed into thinking, "Wait a second.

Not only should we trigger the opt-out clause, maybe we should renew these deals even sooner, because I think we are leaving money on the table." And so that's where we are right now.

Yeah.

So don't worry about it.

Exactly.

Why, why would I be so silly to think that they might actually have a, a, a quiet opinion on how their money was being, how many, many billions of dollars of their money was being spent, um, if we're a United States media company, and a large one? So look, again, we'll see exactly how that plays out.

Yes, to your earlier point, I do th- absolutely feel like the rules are different because this is a quasi controlled company by the Ellison family.

It is not nearly the same as a pure play, publicly traded media company.

That said, uh, there's no ...

It is still a publicly traded company.

Um, how should we feel about that, and how should we feel just as consumers of culture, uh, to have all of these assets controlled by one person, regardless of who it is?

How much of this money is now going to some of these prediction

markets? And not the fan duels of the world.

It's growing, and it's growing by the month.

So this really was a category that was started earlier this year by Kalshi.

And Piper Jaffray just came out with an analyst.

You can see it on the screen here.

$9.75 billion in volume estimated for... for this month, which would be 15% month over month, driven in large part by the estimation of what is about to happen this weekend with those three football games you saw.

Can I bet on the game via Kalshi or Polymarket? Don't call it betting,

And Amazon's an incredibly important service for them.

Disney is not.

Disney is a holdout there, and YouTube wants Disney to be a part of their channels ecosystem, and Disney has said no.

Now, why does Disney say no and why does YouTube want this so much? Well-The more programming Disney makes exclusive to their streaming services, YouTube has no access to that other than channels because this deal that they're signing is for the linear networks only, and Disney probably has more, uh, uh, expensive, interesting, highly-rated programming available on either Disney+ or Hulu that's exclusive to streaming than any of the other streamers do, traditional streamers, who almost, almost always simulcast their popular programming in some way through both cable and streaming.

So, it may be a bigger deal to YouTube to have Disney as part of this channel's ecosystem because they fear two, three years down the road, there may be some really highly-rated stuff on Disney+ that YouTube simply can't get access to unless Disney were a part of this channel's store.

So-

Yes.

...

stupid, but guess

what? I think we're headed toward a time period where there are going to be millions of customers that are going to effectively be paying for ESPN Plus twice because they are going to have ESPN in their cable bundle, and maybe many of those also subscribe to that Disney bundle of Disney Plus plus Hulu plus ESPN Plus for, again, $50 a month.

And those people will now get ESPN Plus access.

But that sounds good for Disney if somebody's paying two to three times.

It does, but that's why they're relying.

For the same product.

Right.

It's 2025 right now, right? What year is it?

So are you doing this is a resource allocation decision at this point.

Yeah, look, I mean, theoretically, this should, I don't know if simplify is the right word, but it should at least flatten the playing field among the major schools so that you're moving out of this system of NIL collectives, where it was really the Wild West.

It was just however much money you could raise nationally.

Great.

All of that money can be then thrown to these athletes and there would be these major bidding wars.

Now that there's a cap, in essence, you're saying, OK, of all of the schools that are going to pay up to that, at least they can all kind of compete fairly against each other because they can only spend up to a certain amount of money.

That said, you're right.

Do we have any sense yet just how stringent and strict the clearinghouse is going to be?

How how do you see Google forming right right now? Let's make a prediction.

Well, certainly hiring Justin is a sign that they are taking this seriously.

If you go and look at that lawsuit that Disney filed over the wrongful hiring of him, it says that if YouTube were to hire Justin Connelly, it would come at great arm to Disney and ESPN.

Now, that's legalese, but still, it was telling to me that they're taking this seriously and Disney and ESPN are not too happy about losing him.

I think...

I think if I were to bet on it, that Google, YouTube will probably take a similar strategy to Netflix in that they will look for events that will register because that is beyond the first thing of what I said about how the most efficient way to get people paying every month is to Eventize games.

The other reason that these streamers have gone to the Eventize model that's different from cable is that there's just so much stuff on these services that most of the tonnage of games doesn't find itself an audience because people can't find it.

Do they really need to dig into their pockets and bring in these really expensive rights when they own all the conversation around that? I mean,

How has he morphed into Steph Curry, the businessman?

Yeah, it's pretty remarkable that he has time to do all of this.

I mean, not only is he still excelling at now age 37 on the court, but he's the CEO of this mini House of Brands conglomerate called 30 Inc.

And that's really what the piece is about, the meat of the piece is about.

how he's able to run all of these various businesses.

And of course, he has help.

And so we speak to some of the division leaders.

Was there anything that caught you by surprise that he shared where you thought, okay, I wasn't expecting that response from him?

Like Disney's big, big into bundles.

It's a, it's...

Right.

It's a Venn diagram that probably only appeals to a few million people.

So I, I tend to agree with the analysts that, at least in the beginning, I, I kind of doubt that this is some sort of, you know, hair on fire, fire needle mover for Disney or ESPN.

But what it does do is it at least is a future-looking product for ESPN to say, "We all need some sort of strategy, as millions and millions of people cancel cable TV every year.

So this is it." The reason that I don't think that this is some sort of unbelievable needle mover to begin with is that, frankly, if you've been subscribing to cable TV, you probably have been doing it for sports.

Those deals are worth $110 billion.