 |
|
|
|||||
As the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games unfold, something is unmistakable: Women are driving the moment. Theyre leading highlight reels. Headlining broadcasts. Powering the storylines fans are sharing and following in real time. From figure skating to freestyle skiing to hockey, women athletes arent a side stage to the Gamesthey are the main event. And the data backs up what were all seeing. In new international research from Parity and SurveyMonkey surveying nearly 12,000 adults across the U.S., Canada, the UK/Ireland, and Australia, womens events are as popular asor more popular thanmens events in the majority of Winter Olympic sports. High-profile women athletes, including Lindsey Vonn, Eileen Gu, and Marie-Philip Poulin, account for 55% of named competitors fans say theyre most excited to follow. And 25% of adults who are excited about the Olympic Games plans to follow more womens events this year than they have in the past. This raises a more nuanced question: If fans say womens sports matter, why is the U.S. less emphatic about demanding equal treatment for women athletes? And why is the U.S. defining equality differently than the rest of the world? FANS ARENT ASKING FOR PARITY, THEY EXPECT IT The most striking finding from the research isnt just interest. Its expectation. Across political affiliations and demographics, a majority of U.S. adults say its important that men and women athletes be treated equally at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That includes everything from sponsorship investment and marketing dollars to media coverage, resources, and overall visibility. But heres where the U.S. story gets complicated. When we compared attitudes internationally, Americans lagged behind their peers in the strength and depth of their conviction. In the UK and Ireland, nearly 80% of adults say equal treatment is important. In the U.S., that drops to 59%. And the real gap is among adults across countries who describe it as very important that men and women athletes are treated equally. That gap matters. At a time when women athletes are delivering some of the most compelling performances of the Games, that hesitation matters. In Canada, the UK/Ireland, and Australia, adults most often felt that equal funding support from their countries exemplified equalitya structural, institutional commitment that ensures women athletes have the same resources to train, compete, and win. In the U.S., however, the top measure wasnt funding. It was the amount of media coverage. Globally, equality is viewed as an investment decision. In the U.S., its still often treated as a visibility problem. Across every country, equal rules or judging criteria and offering the same sports for men and women rounded out the top four ways to achieve equality at the Games. However it manifests, audiences want equalityand they expect brands to reflect that standard. Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults say Olympic and Paralympic sponsors should invest marketing dollars equally between men and women athletes. Yet 43% believe Olympic and Paralympic brands arent spending enough on womens sports today. Consumers see the gap. And when expectations outpace action, trust erodes. THIS IS NO LONGER A GROWTH BET, BUT A GROWTH ENGINE For years, womens sports were framed as something brands should support, after the audience showed up. That argument doesnt hold anymore. The audience is already here. Womens events are matchingand often exceedingmens in popularity. Women athletes are generating outsized engagement and cultural relevance. And younger fans, especially, expect brands to reflect their values. At Parity, we have the privilege of working with more than 1,400 professional women athletes, including hundreds of Olympians and Paralympians, and over 50 of our athletes are in action in Milan-Cortina. We consistently see that partnerships with women athletes drive stronger trust, deeper community connection, and more authentic storytelling. In a fragmented world where attention is scarce, trusted voices matter more than ever. Women athletes are some of the most credible and relatable storytellers in sports. Brands that recognize this are gaining share of heart, and share of market. THE GAMES ARE A GLOBAL STAGELEADERSHIP IS VISIBLE The Olympics and Paralympics arent just sporting events. Theyre cultural mirrors and megaphones. They show the world what we value, and who we value. When coverage, sponsorship, and storytelling skew unequal, it sends a message. So does equal investment. Audiences outside the U.S. are expressing stronger expectations around gender equality. As the worlds largest sports and advertising marketand with the 2028 Summer Olympics coming to Los Angelesthe U.S. should be setting the standard, not trailing it. Especially when women athletes are already delivering some of the most electric moments of the Games. THE OPPORTUNITY Progress doesnt require patience, it requires priority. Today, brands can choose to fund women athletes equally, tell their stories more prominently, and show up where fans already are. Because the audience has spoken. The momentum is real. The upside is obvious. And midway through these Games, one thing is undeniable: Womens sports arent catching up. Theyre leading. And its time for the rest of the ecosystemespecially here in the U.S.to lead with them. Leela Srinivasan is CEO of Parity.
Category:
E-Commerce
Hello again, welcome to Fast Companys Plugged In, and a quick note: A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a game I was vibe-coding using Claude Code, and said I would share it once I finished it. Here it is, along with more thoughts on the uncanny experience of collaborating with AI on a programming project. Late Show host Stephen Colbert and his network, CBS, are still at odds over why his planned interview with James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for a Texas U.S. Senate seat, didnt air last Monday. In Colberts account, CBS lawyers forbid the broadcast after Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr said talk show interviews might trigger the FCCs equal time rule, which requires broadcasters to give equivalent airtime to competing candidates if requested. For its part, CBS maintained that its lawyers didnt quash the interview but rather informed Colbert of the equal-time issue. Either way, Colbert had a problem on his handsbut an easily solvable one. The Late Show simply put the interview on YouTube, whichlike all streaming servicesis not subject to the equal time rule. Its since racked up more than eight million views, well over three times the typical live/DVR viewership of Colberts program in its classic form. For CBS, the incident was particularly touchy. Its parent company, Paramount Skydance, is currently trying to engineer a takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require approval by the Trump administrations Department of Justice. Given that the FCC was already investigating ABCs The View over a Talarico interview, Carrthe guy who managed to get Jimmy Kimmel knocked off the air for four nights last Septembercould have seized on a Late Show interview as a provocation. Bumping the segment to YouTube eliminated it as grist for his mill. (For the record, Carr claimed to be entertained by the whole affair.) Along with the Trumpy intrigue, the Colbert-Talarico-Carr drama provides more evidence that YouTube has eaten TVa topic I explored last October in an oral history titled, well, How YouTube Ate TV. Once Colbert concluded he couldnt run the Talarico interview on his broadcast show, its tough to believe he spent much time figuring out where to put it. What about Paramount+, Paramount Skydances own streaming contender? Well, maybe, if Colbert had wanted to reach its 77.5 million subscribers. But releasing it on YouTube, which has two billion logged-in watchers a month, was the surest way to make the interview available to the largest possible audience. The fact that YouTube is now the U.S.s largest video service, period, only makes the equal time ruleand its focus on media brought into homes by antennaslook more antiquated. Its certainly possible to see noble intentions in the FCC mandate, which predates the agencys 1934 establishment and happens to be almost exactly the same age as CBS. (Both will mark their respective centenaries next year.) Radio, the medium that inspired it, used public airwaves, was greatly constrained by available spectrum, and exerted tremendous power over political candidates ability to reach voters. So did TV, once it arrived in force in the late 1940s. But just a decade after that, the equal time rule was already regarded as counterproductive if not faintly ridiculous. A Chicago kook/perennial candidate named Lar Dalywho campaigned in an Uncle Sam suitseized it to secure TV airtime in his 1959 campaign for mayor of Chicago. The following year, when he ran for president, he even forced his way onto The Tonight Show. His antics helped prompt Congress to carve out exemptions protecting many broadcasts from having to comply with the rule, including the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. By the 1980s, so many types of programming were exemptincluding newscasts and news interview shows such as Meet the Pressthat when the equal time rule came into play, it was often in edge cases such as stations choosing not to run old Ronald Reagan movies during his presidential campaigns. (Sorry, Bedtime for Bonzo fans.) As recently as 2006, the FCC told a California gubernatorial candidate that incumbent governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers appearance on The Tonight Show did not entitle him to equivalent time. (Carrs recent stance that talk shows may be subject to the rule is at odds with that ruling.) Maybe there was an argument for the rule when streaming video did not yet exist, and even cable TV reached a minority of U.S. households. But according to the Pew Research Center, 78% of American households have broadband. Another study, from Nielsen, found that only 18% of homes had an antenna rigged up for over-the-air broadcasts, and that most of those also had access to streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix. Thats not accounting for people who watch internet video on a phone via a cellular connection. Bottom line: Very few people are watching broadcast TV solely because they dont have other options. Indeed, its old-school TV thats become a niche. Which helps explain why Paramount Skydance is so eager to scarf up Warner Bros. Discoverys colossal back catalog but so disinterested in Colbert that it canceled his show. (The company maintains the cancellation was a prudent financial decision, not a token of goodwill to Trump as his DoJ was preparing to sign off on Paramounts merger with Skydance; regardless of the motivation, its a sign of traditional TVs diminished relevance.) YouTube is hardly immune to government interference in its political content. On Wednesday, attorneys general from 16 states sent a letter to Alphabet Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker claiming it had censored videos from conservative political commentators such as Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro. Still, as far as I know, nobody argues that anything resembling the equal time rule should apply on YouTube. Given that there are millions of YouTubers, it would hard to know where to start. But with millions of YouTubers of wildly different predilections posting videos to the platform, a powerful form of equal time is built in. Meanwhile, broadcast medias control by a shrinking number of giant companies is a bigger problem than ever, and Carr doesnt seem to care, at least as long as it might tilt in a Trump-friendly direction. On Wednesday, he said he supports lifting an ownership cap on TV stations to allow the right-leaning media company Nexstar to acquire its rival Tegna. Carr will presumably continue to wield the equal time rule as a cudgel against Trump critics, particularly if it leads media companies to obey in advance, as CBS seems to have done. I dont discount the possibility of some future Democratic FCC chair abusing it in a similar fashion. But its nice to think that the mandatewhich, in our lifetimes, always seemed both impotent and misguidedmight continue to fade away along with the 20th-century forms of media that inspired it. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on fastcompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company AI’s biggest problem isn’t intelligence. It’s implementationCulture, workflows, and human habits may set the real pace of the AI economy. Read More Viral sleuths are turning the Nancy Guthrie case into contentTrue-crime enthusiasts are spreading theories, chasing clout, and complicating an active missing-person investigation. Read More What it’s really like to use the ‘Tesla of induction stoves’We tried testing Charlie, a sleek induction range that can outperform its gas counterparts. Read More Palantir is caught in the middle of a brewing fight between Anthropic and the PentagonThe Defense Department is threatening to blacklist Anthropic over limits on military use, potentially putting one of its top contractors in a bind. Read More New AI models are losing their edge almost immediatelyCompetitors can now match state-of-the-art systems in weeks, raising fears about distillation and shrinking advantages. Read More Meta patents AI that lets dead people post from the great beyondMeta’s latest patent outlines AI that could mimic dead users’ activity across Facebook and Instagram, but the company says there are no plans to use the technology. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Wednesday to defend his companys practices in a landmark trial that could determine whether social media companies can be held liable for alleged harms to children. But if the defendants lose, the implications could extend far beyond social media. The case centers on Meta and Google, with plaintiffs alleging that services like Instagram and YouTube are intentionally designed to keep users, especially kids, engageda dynamic they say can lead to harmful mental health effects, including addiction. The trial is widely viewed as a test case for roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits waiting in the wings. Meta and Google deny the charges, with Zuckerberg testifying on Wednesday that “I care about the well-being of teens and kids who are using our services.” If Meta and Google lose this case, it could change how people interact with their platforms. But the consequences may not stop there: The outcome could also have implications for other tech giants, as well as companies far outside the technology sector. More insurance claims for social media addiction? Insurance companies, for example, could see a rise in claims for digital or social media addiction treatment. For now, social media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), the authoritative guide used to diagnose mental health issues. That makes specialized coverage rare, though insurers do pay for underlying mental health conditions caused or worsened by social media, such as anxiety, depression, or behavioral disorders. Still, the DSM-5-TR is published by the American Psychiatric Association, which has warned that “excessive, compulsive or out-of-control use of various types of technologies is an increasing area of concern.” Business experts say a legal victory by the plaintiffs could accelerate that shift, making digital addiction a more bigger factor for insurers and employers alike. “I think, depending on the outcome of this court case, that may give more credibility to the notion of digital addiction,” says David Schweidel, a marketing professor and the chair of Business Technology at Emory Universitys Goizueta Business School. “In an extreme scenario, social media could get labeled as the next Big Tobacco.” Insurance companies declined to comment on the trial and its implications, but some have already taken steps to shield their liability when it comes to social media clients. In 2024, Hartford Casualty and several other insurers filed suit in Delaware seeking declaratory relief that they were not legally required to cover Metas legal defense or any resulting settlements or damages in a consolidated California case alleging that social media platforms contribute to harmful behaviors in children. (That case is still pending.) And insurance companies may not be the only businesses to feel the ripple effects. If the jury finds that programmed algorithms are not protected by Section 230, the federal law that shields social media companies from liability over content posted by their users, it could expose many tech companies outside the social media industry to new legal risks. Streamers could feel the effects, too Streaming services that rely on autoplay to encourage binge-watching, or mobile games that lure players back with dopamine-triggering lock-screen alerts, could also find themselves on shakier legal ground. (The European Union, meanwhile, has opened a formal investigation into online retailer Shein that includes scrutiny of its addictive design, specifically gamified programs that reward shoppers with points and other incentives.) Even smartphone makers could be forced to make changes, such as giving users more control over notifications. Other companies across the business spectrum could feel the effects if a growing number of people begin seeking treatment for digital addiction. “Employers could potentially affected by severity of addition as well,” says Schweidel. “As the idea of treatment for digital addiction or social media addiction becomes more socially acceptable, people will be taking more time off work to get that treatment.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||