What exactly are Gen Z streaming habits today?

To get a clear picture of Gen Z streaming habits, it helps to look at how much time they spend on different kinds of media. According to research, Gen Z spends 54 percent more time on social platforms than the average consumer, which is about 50 minutes more per day. You can read more about this data here. This means they are very active on places like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, where they don’t just watch videos but also interact with others, share content, and discover new trends. At the same time, they spend 44 minutes less watching traditional shows or movies on TV or through cable. This shift shows that Gen Z prefers shorter, bite sized content that feels more personal and less formal than the usual TV shows. Their streaming habits also include using multiple devices, switching quickly between different types of content, and favoring on demand services like Netflix, Disney Plus, and Twitch. These platforms allow them to watch what they want, skip ads, and even join live streams or discussions. So, when we talk about Gen Z streaming habits, we are talking about a generation that values freedom, interaction, and quick access to a wide range of content, which is changing how entertainment is made and enjoyed today.

Why do big companies spend so much money on shows?

Big companies like Netflix spend huge amounts of money on shows for a few important reasons. The way Netflix works is simple but powerful. People pay a monthly fee to watch their content, which means Netflix needs to keep those subscribers happy and coming back for more. To do that, they need to offer shows and movies that you cannot find anywhere else. This is why they invest billions of dollars into creating exclusive content that only their subscribers can enjoy.

One big part of this spending is understanding the Gen Z streaming habits. Young viewers today have grown up with streaming as their main way to watch shows and movies. They are used to having tons of options and expect fresh, exciting content all the time. If Netflix doesn’t keep up with what Gen Z wants, those viewers will switch to another service that does. So, Netflix and other companies pour money into creating shows that match these habits, making sure they stay relevant in a crowded market.

Netflix is planning to spend 18 billion dollars in cash on content in 2025. This huge budget shows just how serious they are about winning and keeping subscribers. When you think about it, that money goes into making everything from big budget dramas to small indie projects, all aimed at different groups of viewers. The goal is to have something for everyone, especially for younger viewers who drive a lot of the streaming trends.

The Gen Z streaming habits have changed the game for these companies. Unlike older generations, Gen Z tends to watch shows on their phones or tablets, often preferring shorter episodes or content that feels more interactive and social. Companies like Netflix study these habits closely to decide what kinds of shows to invest in. Spending billions on content is not just about making entertainment it’s about understanding the audience and offering what they want before anyone else does. This is why big companies keep spending so much money on shows, always trying to stay ahead in the fast moving world of streaming.

If you want to read more about Netflix’s content spending plans, you can check out this article from Variety.

How much money does YouTube spend on making videos?

When you think about YouTube and the videos you watch every day, it might feel like the company spends a huge amount of money making those videos itself. But that is not how YouTube works. Unlike traditional TV networks or movie studios, YouTube does not create its own shows or movies. Instead, it acts as a platform where millions of regular people, from all around the world, can upload their videos for others to watch. This is a big part of what makes YouTube so unique and popular, especially with younger viewers.

YouTube’s business model is built around sharing ad money with the creators who make the content. When you watch a video on YouTube, you often see ads before or during the video. The money from those ads goes to YouTube, but a big portion of it is shared with the people who made the videos. This helps creators earn income from their work and encourages them to keep making new content. It is a win win situation. Creators get paid, viewers get free videos, and YouTube makes money by hosting the platform and running the ads.

This system has been especially important for understanding Gen Z streaming habits. Gen Z tends to spend a lot of their time online watching videos on platforms like YouTube rather than traditional TV. They enjoy the variety and freedom to watch whatever they want, whenever they want. Because YouTube supports creators financially, it allows for a wide range of content that appeals to different interests, which fits perfectly with the diverse tastes of Gen Z viewers. If you want to see just how much YouTube values its creators, you can check this report from CNBC. Since 2021, YouTube has paid out over 100 billion dollars to creators, showing just how significant this sharing model has become.

This approach helps explain why YouTube is so successful and why it plays a big role in shaping Gen Z streaming habits. Instead of spending big money making their own videos, YouTube empowers millions of people to create and share their stories, ideas, and entertainment while also supporting them financially. It is a powerful way to keep content fresh, interesting, and connected to what viewers really want.

Who is actually winning the battle for our screens?

When it comes to the fight for our attention on screens, it might seem like Netflix, with its billions of dollars spent on original shows and movies, would be the clear winner. After all, Netflix has poured huge amounts of money into creating hit series and exclusive content, hoping to keep viewers hooked. But if we take a closer look at the numbers, it’s clear that YouTube is actually coming out on top, especially when we consider Gen Z streaming habits.

In July 2025, YouTube captured 13.4 percent of all TV watch time, while Netflix held only 8.8 percent. This data, reported by Nielsen, really highlights how much more screen time people are spending on YouTube compared to Netflix. You can check out the full details on Nielsen’s website. What’s fascinating about this is that even though Netflix spends billions on content, YouTube’s mix of free videos, live streams, and user generated content is drawing more viewers overall. This suggests that many people, particularly younger viewers, prefer the variety and accessibility that YouTube offers.

Gen Z streaming habits play a big role in this shift. Younger audiences tend to favor platforms where they can find quick, diverse, and interactive content. YouTube fits that bill perfectly because it lets users watch everything from music videos to DIY tutorials, vlogs, and gaming streams all in one place. Netflix, on the other hand, mainly offers longer form shows and movies that require more time and commitment. For Gen Z, the ability to switch between different types of content quickly and engage with creators directly makes YouTube more appealing.

So even though Netflix invests heavily in original programming and global expansion, YouTube’s broad range of content and its free, easy to access format are winning over more viewers, especially among younger generations. The battle for our screens isn’t just about spending big on fancy shows anymore. It’s about meeting the changing Gen Z streaming habits, and right now, YouTube seems to have the upper hand.

What do Gen Z streaming habits tell us about the future?

When we look at Gen Z streaming habits, it becomes clear that young people today are searching for something real. They are not as interested in flashy Hollywood productions with big budgets and polished scripts. Instead, they want to connect with people who feel like friends. This generation values authenticity and relatability over glitz and glamour. They want to watch creators who share their everyday lives, struggles, and joys. These creators are not distant stars on a big screen but people who seem approachable and genuine.

One interesting piece of data shows that 52 percent of Gen Z feel more connected to online creators than to traditional actors or TV hosts. This tells us a lot about what young viewers are looking for. They want to feel like they know the person on screen, like they could reach out and have a conversation. This connection is stronger than the appeal of famous faces or expensive sets. It shows that Gen Z streaming habits are shifting the entertainment world toward a more personal, community driven experience. You can find more about this data at this link.

The future of streaming is likely to revolve around these real connections. Gen Z streaming habits suggest that the old ways of making content might not work as well anymore. Instead of focusing solely on big productions and star power, creators and platforms might need to emphasize building genuine relationships with their audiences. This means more live chats, behind the scenes moments, and honest conversations that make viewers feel included. It also shows that the power of storytelling is evolving. Stories no longer have to be grand or scripted to matter. They just need to be real.

Gen Z streaming habits reveal a simple but powerful truth. Money does not buy attention anymore. It is not about how much you spend on special effects or famous actors. What matters is the connection you create with your audience. Young people want to feel seen and heard by people who seem like friends, not distant celebrities. As the streaming world continues to change, this focus on authenticity and real connections will shape the future of entertainment in ways we are only beginning to understand.

The post Netflix Spent $17 Billion. YouTube Spent $0. Guess Who Won. appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

There is a very specific reason for that. And it is the exact same reason why one of the biggest teen apparel brands in the world just decided to stop making traditional ads.

Hollister, the clothing brand owned by Abercrombie and Fitch, recently launched its biggest summer campaign to date. But instead of shooting a standard commercial with models smiling at a camera and a big logo at the end, they did something completely different. They made a genuine music video.

They teamed up with a 26-year-old singer named Gigi Perez, who recently blew up on TikTok. Together, they recorded the first ever officially licensed cover of Green Day’s classic 1997 song Good Riddance (Time of Your Life). The video shows real high school moments. Football games. Homecoming dances. Teenagers hanging out on skateboards and packing up their cars to leave for college.

If you watch the video closely, you will notice something missing. There is no overt branding. There is no big logo flashing on the screen. There is no call to action telling you to buy a pair of jeans or a new summer dress. The clothes are there, but they are just sitting quietly in the background.

This was not an accident. It was a very deliberate choice to move away from traditional ads. And it is a choice that led to a massive 15% growth in net sales for the brand in 2025.

So, why did they do it? And more importantly, what can we learn from their decision to abandon traditional ads? Let us break it down.

Why do traditional ads feel so easy to ignore today?

We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by information. Every time we look at our phones, someone is trying to sell us something. Because of this, our brains have developed a filter.

When we know someone is trying to sell us something, our brains automatically put up a wall. We become sceptical. We look for the catch. It is a natural defence mechanism. We see traditional ads, and our minds immediately classify them as noise. We scroll past them without even registering what they are about.

But when we encounter something that feels like genuine entertainment, our defences drop. If we hear a song we like or see a story that moves us, we let it in. The emotional impression goes much deeper.

Hollister understood this perfectly. By creating a music video instead of traditional ads, they bypassed the part of the brain that says this is an ad, ignore it. Instead of trying to sell a product, they tried to create a feeling. They wanted to be associated with nostalgia, warmth, and the bittersweet joy of growing up.

There is actual science behind this approach. Studies show that ads evoking nostalgia make 75% of consumers more likely to buy. When a brand connects with you on an emotional level, you stop seeing them as a company trying to take your money. You start seeing them as a part of your life.

They are not trying to win a quick sale with traditional ads. They are trying to win a memory. Because a memory lasts a lot longer than a discount code. And memories do not feel like traditional ads.

How quickly do people actually tune out traditional ads?

The numbers are staggering. Research shows that Gen Z consumers lose active attention for ads after just 1.3 seconds. That is not a typo. 1.3 seconds. Before you have even had a chance to say your brand name, they have already mentally moved on.

This is the world that traditional ads are competing in today. It is not just that people dislike traditional ads. It is that their brains are now physically wired to filter them out before they even register.

This is why the shift away from traditional ads is not just a creative trend. It is a survival strategy. If your content does not earn attention in the first second, it does not matter how much you spent making it.

Why does nostalgia work better than traditional ads for Gen Z?

We usually think of nostalgia as missing something from our own past. We feel nostalgic for the cartoons we watched as kids or the snacks we ate in middle school. But there is a strange thing happening right now, especially with younger people. They are feeling nostalgic for eras they never actually lived through.

Gen Z grew up with social media. On their feeds, a video from 1997 and a video from 2024 can appear right next to each other. Time is flat. So, when a 26-year-old singer covers a punk song from 29 years ago, it does not feel old to a teenager today. It feels current.

This is a massive shift in how we think about marketing. If you want to reach a younger audience, you do not always have to look for the newest trend. Sometimes, you need to look backward. You need to figure out what feeling they are trying to recreate, even if they never experienced the original version of it.

Research shows that 68% of Gen Z feel positively toward nostalgic branding, and that nostalgic content generates a 2x higher emotional response rate compared to standard content. Hollister saw this happening. They saw their own customers pinning physical photos to their walls and keeping concert wristbands. They realised that young people are craving things that feel real, tactile, and permanent in a very digital world.

Traditional ads usually focus on what is new and shiny. But Hollister realised that their audience wanted something that felt timeless. By tapping into this deep desire for nostalgia, they created a connection that traditional ads could never achieve. They made their audience feel seen and understood.

What is the reminiscence bump and why should every brand know about it?

Psychologists have a name for the reason why teenage memories feel so powerful. They call it the reminiscence bump. Research shows that the memories we form between the ages of roughly 10 and 30 are the ones we remember most clearly for the rest of our lives. This is the period when we are forming our identity, experiencing things for the first time, and building the emotional foundation of who we are.

Music is one of the most powerful triggers for these memories. A study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that music heard during this critical window of adolescence creates some of the most emotionally charged and long-lasting memories a person will ever have.

Hollister is not just selling clothes. They are trying to become part of that memory window. They want to be the brand that a 35-year-old looks back on and thinks, that was the brand I wore when everything felt possible. That is a level of loyalty that traditional ads simply cannot manufacture.

Why is exclusivity so powerful compared to traditional ads?

Most brands approach partnerships by asking a simple question. They ask, who is popular right now? They find whoever has the most followers and pay them to star in their traditional ads.

Hollister asked a different question. They asked, what can we do that has never been done before?

Green Day is a massive band. Their song Good Riddance is an absolute classic. And until now, they had never allowed another artist to officially cover it for a brand partnership. Hollister managed to get that exclusive right.

That changes everything. It takes the campaign from being just another set of traditional ads and turns it into a cultural event. It becomes something newsworthy.

When something is genuinely scarce or the first of its kind, people pay attention. We value things more when they are hard to get or unique. By securing an exclusive piece of music history, Hollister made sure their campaign stood out in a sea of endless content.

Think about how many traditional ads you see every single day. Hundreds. Maybe thousands. They all blend together into one big blur. But you only see the first-ever official cover of a classic song once. Exclusivity creates a level of interest and excitement that traditional ads simply cannot buy. It makes people feel like they are part of a special moment.

What happens when creators step out of traditional ads and into the story?

There is another interesting layer to this campaign. Hollister has a group of creators they work with, called the Hollister Style Hub. Normally, brands use creators just to post pictures of products and share discount links. It is a very transactional relationship. It is just another form of traditional ads.

But Hollister did something different. They actually cast these creators as talent in the music video itself.

This is a subtle but important shift. There is a big difference between a creator promoting a brand in traditional ads and a creator actually being part of the brand’s story. When creators are integrated into the story, it feels much more authentic. It does not look like traditional ads. It looks like a group of friends making something together.

And authenticity is exactly what audiences are looking for today. They are tired of being sold to. They are tired of traditional ads that feel fake and forced. They want to see real people doing real things.

By bringing their creators into the actual content, Hollister showed that they value these people as more than just human billboards. They value them as collaborators. Studies show that branded content is twice as memorable as display advertising. This proves that the brand is willing to invest in real relationships instead of just paying for traditional ads.

Are you still making traditional ads or are you making memories?

The lesson here is simple but profound. People remember how you made them feel far longer than they remember what you sold them.

Music plays a huge role in this. Research shows that music bypasses the analytical parts of our brain and connects directly to our emotional and memory networks. This is why a song can take you back to a specific moment in your life in an instant. It is not just a sound. It is a time machine.

Hollister knows this. They know that if they can weave their brand into the emotional memories of a teenager, they do not need to keep pushing traditional ads at them. They just need to be there. They want to be the label on the dress that someone keeps in the back of their closet for a decade.

That is a fundamentally different goal than trying to get a click on a website. And it requires a fundamentally different approach than making traditional ads.

When you focus on creating memories instead of traditional ads, you change the entire dynamic between your brand and your audience. You stop being a nuisance that interrupts their day. You become a welcome part of their life.

This is why moving away from traditional ads was such a smart move for Hollister. They stopped fighting for attention and started earning it. They stopped trying to convince people to buy clothes and started giving them a reason to love the brand.

Traditional ads will always have a place in the world. But they are no longer the only way, or even the best way, to build a brand that people genuinely care about. The companies that win in the future will be the ones that figure out how to step outside the boundaries of traditional ads. They will be the ones that create art, tell stories, and build genuine emotional connections.

Just like Hollister did. They proved that sometimes, the best way to sell more is to stop making traditional ads altogether. They proved that when you focus on the feeling, the sales will follow.

Traditional ads tell you what to buy. Great stories tell you how to feel. And in a world full of traditional ads, the brands that make you feel something are the ones you never forget.

Joshua Mathias is among the top PR Agencies in Dubai and works with businesses across the GCC region, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Middle East, helping them build brands, manage reputations, and connect with audiences.

Learn more at joshuamathias.com

The post Hollister Stopped Making Traditional Ads and Sold More appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

I know. That sounds completely backwards. Every instinct in business tells you to give people more choices. More products, more features, more options. The thinking is simple: the more you have, the more people will find something they like. Right?

Well, it turns out that’s wrong. And a recent move by Dick’s Sporting Goods with their Foot Locker brand proves it in a pretty dramatic way.

I was talking to a friend who works in retail strategy, and they brought up this story. Dick’s bought Foot Locker and decided to completely rethink the store experience. One of the first things they did was remove roughly 30% of the shoe styles from the walls. They didn’t replace them with new styles. They just took them away.

And then something surprising happened. Sales went up. Not just a little. The redesigned stores started outperforming even the core Dick’s Sporting Goods locations.

So what is going on here? Why do fewer options increase sales? Let’s dig into it.

What does science say about too many choices?

This isn’t just a lucky accident. There is a huge body of research that backs this up.

Back in 2000, two researchers from Columbia University, Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, ran a now-famous study at a grocery store. They set up two tasting tables. One had 24 flavors of jam. The other had just 6 flavors.

The table with 24 jams attracted more people to stop and look. But here’s where it gets interesting. When shoppers were presented with 24 options, only 3% made a purchase. When they were presented with just 6 options, 30% made a purchase. That is a ten-times difference in conversion, just by removing options.

This is what researchers call “choice overload.” When we are faced with too many options, our brains get overwhelmed. We can’t decide. And when we can’t decide, we do nothing. We walk away empty-handed.

Harvard Business Review has written about this extensively, noting that when there is too much choice, consumers are less likely to buy anything at all. And if they do buy, they feel less satisfied with what they chose, because they keep wondering if one of the other options might have been better.

Why do fewer options increase sales in retail?

Think about the last time you walked into a store that felt cluttered and overwhelming. Shoes stacked from floor to ceiling. Racks so full you can barely flip through them. Hundreds of products all competing for your attention.

How did that make you feel? Probably a little stressed. Maybe you grabbed something quickly just to get out of there. Or maybe you left without buying anything at all.

Now think about a store that felt clean and focused. A few carefully chosen products, well-lit and well-displayed. A clear story about what the brand stands for. You probably felt calmer. You probably spent more time looking. And you probably bought something.

That’s exactly what Dick’s created with their new “Fast Break” format at Foot Locker. By removing 30% of the styles from the shoe wall, they were able to tell a clearer story about the shoes they did have. They created better displays. They made the shopping experience feel intentional rather than chaotic.

Executive Chairman Ed Stack described the improvement this way: “The improvement is coming from the basics: clearer storytelling, better presentation and a more focused assortment where we removed roughly 30% of the styles on the shoe wall that were unproductive.”

The results were so strong that Dick’s is now rolling out this format to 250 Foot Locker stores across the US and Europe.

Does this only apply to shoe stores?

Not at all. The principle that fewer options increase sales applies across almost every industry.

Think about email marketing. Research has shown that emails featuring 3 products generate 38% higher revenue than emails with more options. Conversion rates increased by 58% and order numbers jumped by 59% when the number of choices was reduced.

Think about restaurant menus. Studies have consistently shown that restaurants with shorter menus see higher customer satisfaction. When you have 200 items to choose from, you spend the whole meal wondering if you ordered the right thing. When you have 20 items, you feel confident in your choice.

Think about software products. Some of the most successful apps in the world, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and early Twitter, became popular because they did one thing really well. They didn’t try to be everything to everyone. They focused.

SKU rationalization, the process of removing underperforming products from a retail lineup, is now a recognized strategy for boosting margins. By identifying and eliminating products that don’t sell well, retailers can focus their resources on the things that do, and create a cleaner, more confident shopping experience.

How can you apply this to your own work?

The lesson here is not to strip your business down to one product and call it a day. It’s about being intentional. It’s about asking yourself: “Is everything I’m offering actually helping my customer make a decision, or is some of it just creating noise?”

Start with an honest audit

Look at your products, your services, your pricing packages, or even your marketing messages. Which ones are actually driving results? Which ones are just taking up space? Be honest. It’s easy to get attached to things we’ve put effort into, even when the data says they aren’t working.

Think about your “shoe wall”

Every business has a version of the shoe wall. It might be a services page on your website with 12 different offerings. It might be a social media strategy that tries to be on every platform at once. It might be a product catalog that keeps growing because no one wants to make the call to cut anything.

Ask yourself: if I removed 30% of the things on this list, would my customers actually miss them? Or would they find it easier to choose?

Focus on what you do best

The stores that perform best in any industry are usually the ones that have a clear point of view. They know who they are for, and they don’t try to be everything to everyone. That clarity is what creates the kind of focused, confident experience that makes customers feel good about buying.

What happens inside a customer’s brain when there are too many choices?

Let’s get a little more specific about why this happens. When you walk into a store or land on a website with too many options, your brain does something interesting. It starts comparing. Every option gets weighed against every other option. The more options there are, the more comparisons your brain has to make. And at some point, the mental effort required to make a decision becomes greater than the pleasure of making the purchase.

Psychologists call this “analysis paralysis.” It’s the state of being so overwhelmed by choices that you end up making no choice at all. And it’s not a sign of laziness or indecision. It’s a completely normal response to an overloaded system.

A meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies on choice overload found that excessive options reduced satisfaction, increased regret, and decreased the likelihood of making a purchase. This pattern holds across industries, cultures, and types of products. It is one of the most robust findings in consumer psychology.

And here is the part that makes this so relevant for businesses today. We live in an era of almost infinite choice. The internet has made it possible to offer hundreds or thousands of options at virtually no additional cost. So the temptation to add more is constant. More products, more services, more packages, more features. More, more, more.

But the research is clear. More is often the enemy of better.

Why does this matter for your marketing and messaging?

The fewer options principle doesn’t just apply to products. It applies to everything you communicate.

Think about your website. How many things are you asking visitors to do? If your homepage has seven different calls-to-action like sign up, learn more, watch a video, read a blog post, follow us on social media, download a guide, and contact us, you are creating the same problem as a wall of 200 shoes. You are overwhelming people with choices. And when people are overwhelmed, they leave.

The most effective websites, the ones that actually convert visitors into customers, tend to have one clear, dominant call-to-action. One thing they want you to do. One path forward. Everything else is secondary.

The same principle applies to your pitch decks, your proposals, your press releases, and your social media posts. Every time you add another point, another benefit, another option, you are diluting the impact of everything else. The more you say, the less people hear.

Dick’s didn’t just remove shoes from the wall. They removed noise from the story. And the story became much more powerful as a result.

The counterintuitive truth about fewer options

Here is the thing that most people miss: removing options isn’t about having less. It’s about having better. When you cut the things that don’t work, you create space for the things that do. You give your best products room to breathe. You give your customers room to think.

And there is a confidence signal in this too. When a brand offers fewer options, it is implicitly saying: “We know what’s good. We’ve done the work of choosing for you. You can trust us.” That kind of confidence is attractive. It’s the difference between a restaurant with a 200-item menu that feels like a diner and a restaurant with 12 carefully chosen dishes that feels like a destination.

The brands that people love most are almost always the ones that have made hard choices about what they will and won’t offer. Apple doesn’t make 50 different laptops. They make a handful, each one clearly differentiated. In-N-Out Burger has one of the shortest menus in fast food. Muji, the Japanese retailer, built an entire brand identity around simplicity and restraint.

These are not accidents. They are strategies. And they are strategies that work because they respect the cognitive limits of the people they are trying to serve.

Dick’s Sporting Goods didn’t make Foot Locker better by adding more. They made it better by taking things away. And the result was sales that outperformed their own flagship brand.

The next time you are tempted to add another option, another product, or another feature, pause for a second. Ask yourself: would fewer options increase sales here? The answer might surprise you.

The post Fewer Options Increase Sales and Here Is the Proof appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The Anatomy of a Digital Firestorm

First, the story. On February 16, 2026, a five-second video clip showed Michael Jordan interacting with the six-year-old son of his race-winning driver, Tyler Reddick. Online, the clip was interpreted by some as strange and inappropriate. Within hours, it exploded. Millions of views turned into a torrent of outrage, with fans posting videos of themselves throwing away expensive sneakers in protest. A global icon was being “canceled” in real-time.

The truth, as it often is, was far more mundane. The boy had gotten ice dumped down his back during a messy victory celebration, and Jordan was simply helping to get it out of his shirt. But the damage was already done, illustrating a terrifying reality: in the digital age, context is fragile, and narrative is king. For brands and creators, this is the new high-stakes environment.

The High-Stakes World of the MENA Creator Economy

This isn’t just a cautionary tale from abroad; it’s directly relevant to the engine room of modern marketing in our region. The creator economy in the Middle East is no longer an emerging trend; it is a dominant force. With influencer spend in Saudi Arabia and the UAE topping a combined $165 million in 2025, the stakes have never been higher. These are not just influencers; they are powerful media entities and, increasingly, entrepreneurs. A recent Visa report revealed that about one-third of UAE creators have launched new ventures off the back of their content success.

When brands invest in these creators, they are not just buying reach; they are buying trust. The creator’s perceived authenticity is the asset. The Jordan incident proves how quickly that asset can be jeopardized. A single, decontextualized moment can unravel years of careful brand-building, for both the creator and their partners. This is the central risk that CMOs and agency leaders must now factor into their strategies.

The Real Lesson: Vetting for Trust, Not Just Metrics

The most important part of the Michael Jordan story is not the outrage, but the resolution. The firestorm was extinguished not by a corporate PR statement, but by the calm, unwavering defense from the boy’s father, Tyler Reddick. When asked, Reddick didn’t just deny the narrative; he reframed it around his long-standing relationship with Jordan. He spoke of trust and friendship. His word had weight because it was built on years of authentic connection, not a transactional partnership.

This is the critical lesson for the MENA marketing community. For too long, the industry has been obsessed with vanity metrics: follower counts, engagement rates, and reach. The Jordan-Reddick dynamic suggests a new, more vital metric: Relational Equity. How strong is a creator’s network of authentic relationships? Who in their circle—peers, partners, collaborators—would come to their defense in a crisis? A creator’s true influence lies not just in their audience, but in the trust they command among those who know them best.

For brands, this demands an evolution in the vetting process. Instead of just asking for a media kit, marketing leaders should be asking: Who are your trusted partners? Can we speak to them? This shift from a transactional to a relational approach is the future of brand safety in the creator economy.

A Playbook for the Age of Context Collapse

So, how can brands and creators in the region prepare for this inevitable risk?

For Brands and Agencies:

1. Prioritize Relational Due Diligence: Before signing a contract, investigate the creator’s professional relationships. A creator with a history of long-term, positive partnerships is a lower-risk investment than one who jumps from one-off campaigns.

2. Build Authentic Partnerships: Move beyond the transactional. Invest time in getting to know your creator partners. When a crisis hits, you want to be defending a partner, not just a vendor.

3. Plan for the Worst: Have open conversations about crisis scenarios. What is the protocol if a campaign clip is taken out of context? Who speaks, who stays silent? Aligning on a plan beforehand is crucial.

For Creators:

1. Nurture Your Network: Your most powerful insurance policy is a strong network of peers, mentors, and brand partners who can vouch for your character. Invest in these relationships.

2. Let Your Champions Speak: In a crisis, your own defense can sound self-serving. A trusted third party speaking on your behalf, as Reddick did for Jordan, is far more powerful.

As the creator economy in the Middle East continues its meteoric rise, the challenges will become more complex. The Michael Jordan incident is a valuable, free-of-charge lesson for all of us. It teaches us that in a world of fleeting attention and viral outrage, the most enduring asset is a reputation built on a foundation of authentic, verifiable trust. For brands investing millions, and for the creators building the future of media, it’s a lesson we can’t afford to ignore.

Joshua Mathias is among the top PR Agencies in Dubai and works with businesses across the GCC region, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Middle East, helping them build brands, manage reputations, and connect with audiences.

Learn more at joshuamathias.com

The post Why Trust Matters More Than Reach in the Creator Economy appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

This isn’t just creative provocation. It’s one of the most psychologically sophisticated campaigns to hit the Super Bowl in years. And most people are missing what makes it brilliant.

What Actually Happens in the Pepsi Ad?

The 30-second spot, directed by filmmaker Taika Waititi, opens with a polar bear taking a blind taste test. He picks Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero. But instead of celebrating, the bear freaks out. Cut to a therapy session where the polar bear sits across from a psychiatrist, played by Waititi himself. The soundtrack? Queen’s “I Want To Break Free.”

This is part of Pepsi’s revived Pepsi Challenge campaign, which originally launched in 1975. The brand brought it back in 2025 with a nationwide taste-test tour. Their claim: 66% of Americans prefer Pepsi in blind taste tests. Now they’re taking that message to the Super Bowl, spending over $7 million for 30 seconds during a game that reaches more than 120 million viewers.

But the campaign doesn’t stop there. Pepsi is running a year-long effort that spans social media, creator content, podcasts, experiential activations, and complimentary Pepsi Challenge kits delivered through Gopuff. As Pepsi’s VP told Marketing Dive, this is “a big idea that we’re going to see throughout Super Bowl and throughout the rest of the year.”

Why Would Pepsi Use Their Competitor’s Mascot?

Here’s what makes this move so bold. Coca-Cola has used polar bears as a brand icon since 1993. That’s over 30 years of brand equity. Billions of dollars spent building the association. And Pepsi just borrowed it.

This is the advertising equivalent of Nike using Michael Jordan to promote Adidas. It’s provocative, risky, and exactly the kind of move that market leaders can’t make but challengers can.

The strategy works because the cost or risk of the signal is what gives it power. By using Coke’s mascot, Pepsi is sending multiple signals: confidence in their product, willingness to take creative risks, and challenger status that makes them more interesting.

Coca-Cola is now in a no-win situation. If they respond, they amplify Pepsi’s message. If they stay silent, the narrative stands. Either way, Pepsi wins.

What’s Really Happening in the Psychiatrist Scene?

Most people will watch the therapy scene and think it’s just funny. But it’s doing something smarter. It’s acknowledging that brand loyalty is an emotional commitment, not a rational choice.

Humans have a nearly obsessive desire to be consistent with what we’ve already done. Once we make a choice, we encounter pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. This is why people stay loyal to brands even when better options exist. Switching feels like betrayal.

For cola drinkers, choosing Coke isn’t just a beverage preference. It’s a repeated commitment that becomes part of identity. Every time you order a Coke, you’re reinforcing that commitment. Over years, it becomes automatic. You’re not choosing Coke anymore. You’re just being consistent with who you’ve always been.

Most brands pretend this barrier doesn’t exist. They act like switching is easy. “Just try us!” they say.

Pepsi is doing the opposite. They’re showing the polar bear having a crisis. They’re validating the emotional weight of switching. The bear isn’t wrong for feeling conflicted. And then Pepsi offers liberation. The soundtrack “I Want To Break Free” says: yes, this feels like breaking free. And that’s okay.

This is psychological judo. Instead of minimizing brand loyalty, Pepsi is amplifying it, then positioning their product as worth the emotional cost.

Why Does the 66% Statistic Matter?

Here’s where the numbers get interesting. Pepsi claims that 66% of Americans prefer Pepsi in blind taste tests. Yet Coke Zero has 4.6% of the market compared to Pepsi Zero Sugar’s 1.4%. Both statements are true. And the gap between them is worth billions.

Most people have never actually compared Pepsi and Coke without seeing the logos. They just pick what they always pick.

This is the difference between psycho-logic and logic. Logically, if you prefer Pepsi’s taste when you can’t see the brand, you should buy Pepsi. But psychologically, we prefer the brand we’re familiar with, the brand our friends drink, the brand that signals the identity we want to project.

The blind taste test strips away brand recognition, social proof, and identity signaling. It forces a purely sensory evaluation. And when you do that, most people pick Pepsi. But in real life, they buy Coke.

Pepsi’s entire campaign is an attack on this gap. They’re saying: you don’t even know what you actually prefer because you’ve never tested it without the bias of the brand. Most consumers assume Coke tastes better because Coke is bigger. Market leadership becomes its own form of social proof.

By running blind taste tests and publicizing the results, Pepsi is challenging that assumption with data.

How Does Being Smaller Make Pepsi Stronger?

Here’s the part that doesn’t make sense until you think about it. Pepsi Zero Sugar is losing in market share but winning in growth. And that might be the better position.

The numbers: Pepsi Zero Sugar has 1.4% market share compared to Coke Zero’s 4.6%. Coke is 3.3 times bigger. But Pepsi Zero Sugar grew 18.1% in volume last year, compared to Coke Zero’s 4.8%. Pepsi is growing 3.8 times faster.

Pepsi’s VP stated that Pepsi Zero Sugar is “one of our main growth drivers” and they’re “doubling down on it.” While Coke Zero must defend a large market position, Pepsi Zero Sugar can focus all resources on aggressive growth.

When you have less, you’re forced to focus intensely. That focus creates breakthrough thinking. Coke Zero’s larger share creates the incumbent’s dilemma. They have more to lose by being provocative, which creates paralysis. They can’t use a polar bear to promote Pepsi without looking defensive.

Pepsi can do all of that. They can use Coke’s mascot. They can make provocative claims. If it works, they grow. If it doesn’t, they’re still the underdog. The risk tolerance is asymmetric. This is why challenger brands often produce more interesting work. It’s about the strategic freedom that comes from having less to lose.

What Makes This Campaign Different from Everything Else?

The Pepsi campaign reveals something that applies far beyond cola. In mature markets where consumers operate on habit, the barrier to switching isn’t rational preference. It’s psychological friction.

Most brands focus on making their product better. Pepsi is focusing on giving people permission to reconsider their automatic choice. The psychiatrist scene isn’t a joke. It’s the strategic core.

When you’re not the market leader, you can try to act like the incumbent, playing it safe. Or you can do things the leader can’t do. Using a competitor’s mascot isn’t just creative. It’s strategic appropriation. Why spend decades building a mascot when you can borrow one that already exists in consumers’ minds?

Most brands treat the Super Bowl as a destination. Pepsi is treating it as a launch pad. The 30-second ad creates attention, but the real value comes from extending that attention across time and channels. The social giveaway, the Gopuff kits, the year-long content strategy—all of it turns a rented moment into owned engagement.

Pepsi isn’t just selling soda. They’re selling permission to break free from habit. And they’re doing it by acknowledging that breaking free is hard, then showing it’s worth it.

Joshua Mathias is a PR and communications strategist based in Dubai, UAE. He has been associated with some of the Top PR Agencies in Dubai and works with businesses across the GCC region, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the wider Middle East, helping them build brands, manage reputations, and connect with audiences. He is frequently cited among top PR professionals in the region.

Learn more at joshuamathias.com.

The post Why Did Pepsi Put Coke’s Polar Bear in a Therapy Session? appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post The Modern Role of Public Relations in the GCC appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The post Why is PR a strategic necessity for modern brands? appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

Unlikely brand collaborations have and are popping up everywhere in 2024, and they’re making us scratch our heads. From Lipton Ice Tea dropping a creamy yellow hat with Cruel Pancake, to McDonald’s going completely off-script with Hamburglar-themed Crocs, these partnerships are as wild as they are eye-catching.

But here’s the thing: these unexpected brand pairings aren’t just attention-grabbers—they’re working. With the average person is exposed to 4,000 to 10,000 ads a day, it’s tough for brands to break through. Unlikely brand collaborations, however, are pulling it off by creating the kind of buzz that you can’t help but share.

Why Unlikely Brand Collaborations Are Making Waves

If you thought Chipotle was all about burritos, think again. They partnered with Wonderskin to create a Lipotle lip stain. Yup, a lip stain that supposedly smells like your favorite guac. Or take NYX Professional Makeup teaming up with chef Gordon Ramsay to design a blush inspired by his cake recipes. Yes, cake-inspired makeup is a real thing now.

But why are brands going for these crazy collabs? Simple. It’s a clever way to tap into new audiences. By partnering with unexpected brands, companies are breaking free from their niches and landing in front of a wider crowd. Unlikely brand collaborations offer just enough “WTF” factor to make you curious—and curiosity sells.

Shock Value Meets Sales: The Perfect Storm

Unlikely brand collaborations grab attention, but they also make consumers pause and think: “Wait, what?” That’s exactly what happened with e.l.f. Beauty and Liquid Death when they dropped a coffin-shaped makeup kit called Corpse Paint. The response? A massive sellout in 45 minutes, plus 12 billion impressions. That’s billion, with a B.

The secret sauce here is shock value. These brands are taking risks to do something people have never seen before. So, when Dunkin’ teamed up with Scrub Daddy for a sponge, or Anya Hindmarch served Heinz Baked Beans ice cream, they weren’t just being silly—they were creating unforgettable moments.

Unlikely Brand Collaborations Are All About Going Viral

It’s not just about getting a laugh or leaving you confused. Unlikely brand collaborations are designed to make waves on social media. Gen Z and Millennials love anything that feels fresh, different, and a little bit out there. That’s why collaborations like these work so well: they’re tailor-made for the meme economy.

Take Velveeta, for example. Their “La Dolce Velveeta” campaign involved a scented nail polish with Nails Inc. and a cheesy martini with BLT Restaurant Group. You can almost picture the Instagram Stories—complete with a few “OMGs” and “WTFs.” The result? Velveeta is now trending with Gen Z, a demographic they couldn’t touch before.

Unlikely Brand Collaborations That Actually Boost the Bottom Line

It’s easy to dismiss these collaborations as PR stunts, but there’s real money behind them. Anya Hindmarch’s Ice Cream Project might sound like a publicity grab—who wants ice cream that tastes like baked beans? Turns out, a lot of people do. This ice cream experiment has helped the designer increase revenue by over $5 million.

Or look at e.l.f. Beauty, whose bizarre partnerships have driven 22 consecutive quarters of sales growth. While traditional marketing often struggles to hold attention, these collaborations capture imaginations—and wallets. When brands like Chipotle see a 43-million-impression bump, you know something’s working.

Gen Z Craves Unlikely Brand Collaborations

Gen Z is a tough crowd to please. They see right through boring marketing and want something authentic—something that breaks the mold. That’s why unlikely brand collaborations are such a hit. They blend humor, absurdity, and a sense of surprise, making them a natural fit for TikTok and Instagram.

But more than just being fun, they’re about creating a connection. Velveeta’s cheesy martini might seem ridiculous, but it’s sparked a new wave of interest. Now, the brand isn’t just “that gooey stuff your grandma likes”—it’s a player in the meme game. And for Gen Z, that’s as good as gold.

Why Unlikely Brand Collaborations Matter

Unlikely brand collaborations aren’t just a flash in the pan. They’re a clever way to grab attention, stand out, and get people talking. Sure, some of them make zero sense. (A Lipotle lip stain? Really?) But that’s the point. When done right, these partnerships blend humor, shock, and relevance—something traditional ads can’t achieve.

So the next time you see a bizarre collab pop up on your feed, don’t roll your eyes. Take a second to appreciate the sheer guts it took to make it happen. Because in a world where 10,000 ads compete for your attention daily, only the wildest, weirdest ideas survive.

And that’s exactly what makes unlikely brand collaborations the secret weapon of 2024.

If you are looking for PR support in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or across the GCC region, please reach out here: Contact Joshua Mathias

The post Unlikely Brand Collaborations For The Win appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The Back to School Opportunity

The Back to School season is a three-month-long window divided into three distinct phases, allowing brands to target their messaging effectively. It spans from July 1 to October 3, making up 13 weeks of potential engagement across various categories.

Phase 1: Pre-Promotional (July 1 – August 15)

25% of conversations around B2S occur during this early phase, with a primary focus on driving awareness. This phase is crucial for establishing top-of-mind brand presence, particularly in sectors like school supplies and apparel, which account for 79% of posts.

• 94% of content during this phase is brand-driven, with influencers contributing just 6%. Despite this, influencer posts yield engagement rates that are 29x higher per post compared to brand posts.
• A significant opportunity exists for food brands, as community interest in food content (10%) exceeds the current brand presence (8%).

Phase 2: Promotional Peak (August 16 – September 5)

This is the most active period, accounting for 57% of Back to School related conversations. Promotional content dominates during this phase, with 50% of posts mentioning promotions such as discounts, bundle deals, and giveaways.

• Food content increases significantly as parents prepare lunchboxes for the upcoming school year, with posts on recipes and lunchbox prep 3x more common than in phase 1.
• Influencers see a 13% rise in their presence compared to phase 1, expanding the marketing reach for brands. TikTok and Instagram remain key platforms, with TikTok driving higher engagement despite fewer posts than Instagram.

Phase 3: Post-Promotional (September 6 – October 3)

During the final phase, 18% of conversations revolve around product utility, focusing on the practical use of B2S products, particularly food-related content (Page 18).

• Food brands take center stage, as 52% of content during this phase is food-related, up from 29% in phase 1 (Page 20). Influencers continue to play a pivotal role, particularly those focused on food and lifestyle, making this phase ideal for content related to lunchbox prep and easy recipes.
• Engagement remains steady, as influencers help consumers transition into the new school year by sharing practical tips and product uses.

Platform Preferences: Instagram vs. TikTok

While Instagram generates 14x more posts than TikTok during the B2S season, TikTok drives 5x higher engagement. This highlights the importance of using both platforms strategically. Instagram is more product-focused, with a stronger presence of school supplies and apparel, while TikTok thrives on food and lifestyle content, particularly in the later phases.

Actionable Insights for Brands

• Maximize Phase 1: Brands should invest more in awareness-driven campaigns early in the season, especially in underrepresented categories like food.
• Capitalize on Phase 2: Promotional content and influencer collaborations can drive significant engagement during this peak period. Consider bundling deals and exclusive offers to capture consumer interest.
• Focus on Utility in Phase 3: As parents settle into routines, brands should focus on promoting the practical use of their products. Content related to food, especially easy lunchbox recipes, can resonate strongly with parents.

The 13-week Back to School season provides multiple opportunities for brands to engage with their audiences in meaningful ways. By understanding the nuances of each phase and leveraging key platforms like Instagram and TikTok, brands can tailor their strategies to maximize engagement and conversion. Whether it’s driving awareness in the early phase or offering practical tips post-school start, the key lies in being responsive to consumer needs at every step of the journey.

If you are looking for PR support in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or across the GCC region, please reach out here and I’ll connect you: Contact Joshua Mathias

The post Back to School 2024: Key Insights and Trends Shaping Brand Strategy in MENA appeared first on Joshua Mathias.

The Power of Two Icons: Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo Takes the Stage

When you think about it, this collaboration is a match made in snack heaven. Coca-Cola has been a household name for over a century, while Oreos have been the go-to cookie for generations. Separately, they’re titans of the snack industry, but together? They’re unstoppable. The refreshing beverage brings together the best of both worlds—a drink that’s refreshingly fizzy with the rich, creamy taste of an Oreo cookie. It’s a combination that might sound odd at first, but once you try it, you’ll wonder why this hasn’t been done before.

This collaboration isn’t just about creating a new product; it’s about showing the world what’s possible when two mega-brands join forces. The Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is more than a drink; it’s a testament to the power of collaboration in today’s competitive market.

For marketing and PR professionals, this is a prime example of how two strong brands can leverage each other’s strengths to create something truly unique and buzzworthy.

Why Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is a Marketing Masterstroke

The Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo isn’t just a novelty item; it’s a marketing masterstroke that’s shaking up the snack world. In an era where consumers are constantly bombarded with new products, standing out is no easy feat. Yet, the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo has managed to capture the attention of snack lovers and brand enthusiasts alike. The secret? A perfect blend of nostalgia and innovation.

By combining the classic taste of Coke with the beloved flavor of Oreos, this collaboration taps into consumers’ emotional connections with both brands. It’s not just a drink; it’s an experience. For marketers, the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of brand equity and the potential impact of strategic partnerships.

This is the kind of collaboration that makes waves in the industry, setting a new benchmark for what’s possible in the world of brand marketing.

What This Means for Future Brand Collaborations

The success of the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is likely to inspire a wave of new collaborations as brands look to replicate its success. But what makes this partnership so special? It’s the perfect alignment of brand values and consumer appeal. Both Coca-Cola and Oreo have strong, recognizable identities, and their collaboration feels natural, not forced. This is a crucial lesson for marketing and PR professionals—authenticity is key when it comes to brand partnerships.

The Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo collaboration also highlights the growing trend of limited-edition products, which create a sense of urgency and exclusivity among consumers. This is a tactic that more brands are likely to adopt as they seek to stand out in an increasingly crowded marketplace.

For marketing professionals, the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo serves as a case study in how to execute a successful collaboration that not only generates buzz but also drives sales.

The Impact on Consumer Behavior

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo collaboration is its impact on consumer behavior. Limited-edition products like this one create a sense of scarcity that drives demand. Consumers know that once it’s gone, it’s gone, which motivates them to act quickly. This is a powerful tool in the marketer’s arsenal, and the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is a perfect example of how to use it effectively.

But it’s not just about scarcity; it’s also about the emotional connection that consumers feel with both brands. The Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo taps into a deep well of nostalgia, reminding consumers of the joy they felt when they first experienced the classic taste of Coke or the simple pleasure of dunking an Oreo in milk. This emotional appeal is what makes the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo more than just a drink—it’s a cultural moment.

Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo Sets a New Standard

This collaboration is a bold move that’s shaking up the snack world and setting new standards for brand partnerships. This limited-edition flavor is more than just a marketing gimmick; it’s a testament to the power of collaboration and the importance of staying true to your brand’s identity.

For marketing and PR professionals, the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is a shining example of what’s possible when two iconic brands come together to create something truly special.

So, whether you’re a fan of Coke, Oreos, or just love seeing brands push the envelope, the Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo is a product you won’t want to miss. It’s not just a drink; it’s a game-changer.

If you are looking for PR support in Dubai, Saudi Arabia or across the GCC region, please click here.

The post How Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Oreo Brilliantly Redefines Brand Collaborations appeared first on Joshua Mathias.