Business
Gen-Z has no nostalgia for the big screen—unless it’s the ‘Minecraft Movie’
Published
4 months agoon
By
Jace Porter
Americans are more likely to watch newly released movies from the comfort of their own homes instead of heading out to a theater, according to a new poll.
About three-quarters of U.S. adults said they watched a new movie on streaming instead of in the theater at least once in the past year, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including about 3 in 10 who watched new movies on streaming at least once a month.
Meanwhile, about two-thirds of Americans said that they’ve watched a recently released movie in a theater in the past year, and only 16% said they went at least once a month.
The results suggest that, on the whole, American moviegoers are more likely to stream a film than see it in the theaters, a shifting tide that was only accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Convenience and cost are both factors for many people who can’t find the time to go to a theater or pay the increasingly high price for a ticket.
Sherry Jenkins, 69, of New Jersey, turns to streaming for all of her moviegoing needs.
“It’s much more convenient,” Jenkins said. “I can watch anything I want, I just have to wait a month or two after the movies are released because they usually go to streaming pretty quickly.”
Streaming is more convenient
In the post-pandemic era, films end up on streaming services more quickly. In 2017, a 90-day exclusive theatrical window was common. Now, theaters are fighting for an industrywide standard of 45 days. For studios, the strategy seems to be different for every movie. This year’s best picture winner, “Anora,” had a 70-day exclusive theatrical window. “Wicked,” meanwhile, was available to purchase on demand only 40 days after opening in theaters — and that was a case in which the film was, and continued to be, a box-office hit. It was also profitable on streaming.
There is some overlap between theatergoers and people who opt for streaming — 55% of U.S. adults have seen a new movie in a theater and skipped the theater in favor of streaming at least once in the past year — but only watching new movies on streaming is more common than only going to the theater.
Some in the film industry believe that movies that start in theaters still have more cultural cachet, but Jenkins doesn’t see it that way.
“The studios now are so closely affiliated with the streaming services,” Jenkins said. “There’s really no logic behind why some skip the theaters.”
The last time she regularly went to the movie theaters was, she thinks, about 20 years ago. But as a tech-savvy retiree, there just hasn’t been enough of a reason to make the trek to the theater. A subscriber to Acorn, BritBox, Paramount+, Peacock, Netflix and Hulu, Jenkins doesn’t even see the need for cable anymore.
“People tell me, ‘Oh, you have to go to the theaters and see ‘Top Gun: Maverick,’ ” Jenkins said. “But my TV is 75 inches, and I’m comfortable. I’m at home.”
The cost of movie tickets is a factor
Maryneal Jones, 91, of North Carolina, said she likes to go to the movies but finds them too expensive.
“There’s some movies I would like to see, and I say to myself, I’ll just wait until they show them on TV or I’ll go visit a friend who has those apps,” Jones said. “But I just don’t want to pay 12 bucks.”
The average cost of a movie ticket in the U.S. is $13.17, according to data firm EntTelligence. In 2022, it was $11.76.
Jones does not subscribe to any streaming services, but she also sees more movies in theaters than many others. She estimates she sees about six to eight a year. Recent films she’s watched in the theater include “The Life of Chuck” and the French romantic comedy “Jane Austen Wrecked My Life.”
The AP-NORC poll also indicates that streaming may be a more accessible option for lower-income Americans. Higher-income adults are more likely than low-income adults to be at least occasional moviegoers for new releases, but the gap is smaller for watching movies on streaming instead of going to the theater.
Younger adults watch more new movies, especially on streaming
New movies are more popular among young adults, regardless of how they see them. But streaming is more of a go-to for the younger generation.
Slightly less than half of adults under age 30 say they watched a recently released movie on streaming instead of going to the theater at least once a month in the past year, compared with about 2 in 10 who watched a movie in the theater with that frequency.
Eddie Lin, an 18-year-old student in Texas, said he mostly watches movies at home, on streamers like Crunchyroll, Hulu, HBO Max and Prime Video, but will go to the theaters for “bigger things” like “A Minecraft Movie,” which is the biggest movie of the year in North America.
“A couple of my friends wanted to see it,” Lin said. “And there were the memes. I felt like the audience would be more interactive and it would be enhanced by being there with, like, a bunch of people.”
While streaming will continue to be formidable competition for audience attention and dollars, there has also been rising interest in the value of seeing certain films in IMAX or on other premium format screens, whether it’s “Sinners” or “Oppenheimer.”
The North American box office is currently up more than 4% from last year, but the industry has struggled to reach pre-pandemic levels of business. Compared with 2019, the annual box office is down more than 22%.
“I used to go more when I was younger, with my family, seeing all the Marvel movies up to ‘Endgame,’ ” Lin said. “I like movie theaters. It’s an experience. For me, it’s mostly a time thing. But I do feel like a certain charm of watching movies in theaters is gone.”
___
Bahr reported from Pittsburgh.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,182 adults was conducted Aug. 21-25, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
You may like
Business
Slipping on ICE: innocent retailers are the latest collateral damage from Trump’s perpetual noise machine
Published
15 minutes agoon
January 21, 2026By
Jace Porter
In her classic 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, pioneering urbanologist Jane Jacobs advised that the key to safe cities is “more eyes on the street.” She advocated that the best way to get these was to have neighborhoods filled with stores and restaurants. With local business providing a multitude of reasons for people to be active in city street life, eyes on the street would follow. It was these eyes that were mentioned by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his January 14 primetime media appeal for the public to witness and document the increasingly horrific actions of the agency known as ICE, the once celebrated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.
Increasingly known for daily video footage of seemingly arbitrary and brutal force, used by masked ICE agents against shoppers and workers at retail shops and restaurants, Walz urged shoppers to “take out that phone and hit record.” The public has been horrified by the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed 37-year-old mother of three and an American citizen, who was shot multiple times in the face by an ICE agent in her own Minneapolis neighborhood. But the footage of ICE brutality is everywhere, and much of it is occurring in retail establishments.
Consider the vivid hypocrisy of the ICE agents who were seen feasting at the popular El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant in Willmar, Minnesota, and then returning later to arrest the owner and employees of this café that had graciously served them. ICE actions have led several local establishments to close for foot traffic, taking only phone orders, while others reported sales drops of 75%.
As for larger enterprises, with recent raids occurring in Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Phoenix, Fortune 500 giants around the nation including Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Ross, Keurig Dr Pepper, and Constellation Brands have all increasingly warned about the impact of ICE raids on their businesses. Patrons and laborers at one Walmart in Van Nuys, California, faced multiple raids in the same day with people tackled and dragged away from ICE agents. Calls for boycotts of retailers who aid and abet ICE enforcement are understandable but retailers are also victims here. They can and should do more to make their roles more clear.
The eyes on the street
The impact of such ICE invasions into Minnesota is being shared nationally, with profound cost to local commerce and also local communities. Local merchants serve a deeper purpose to society than selling goods that are often available through ecommerce. Retail stores are among the last remaining shared civic spaces—places where people of all backgrounds still cross paths in the course of everyday life. Shopkeepers are community pillars because they build social ties, foster local identity, boost the economy by keeping money local, and act as hubs for connection, often providing personalized service and supporting local events, making neighborhoods more vibrant, resilient, and unique places to live and shop. They transform basic commerce into meaningful relationships and community gathering spots, strengthening the social fabric.
America’s great retailers have long understood this. From Walmart’s Sam Walton to J.C. Penney to The Home Depot co-founders Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, retail legends have long described stores not merely as institutions of public trust. Blank has spoken of retail as a civic platform—a space where people from different walks of life come together in ordinary, human ways. Marcus has emphasized that Home Depot was built on dignity: respect for customers, respect for workers, and a belief that welcoming people into shared spaces strengthens communities rather than fragments them.
So, what could possibly disrupt that vision?
Last week, videos ricocheted across social media showing federal immigration agents restraining a man inside a Walmart in Minnesota and detaining individuals at the entrance of a Target. Days later, in Los Angeles, Home Depot parking lots—long informal hiring sites for day laborers—again became flashpoints for enforcement actions and community backlash. These were just a few of many ICE raids playing out across the country, in locales as varied as New York, Georgia, Texas and beyond, where shoppers have reported increased immigration enforcement activity near department stores and shopping centers, triggering protests, boycotts, and a growing sense that retail spaces are being repurposed into stages for public confrontation.
This is surely not the retail experience that Marcus and Blank had in mind when they spoke of dignity and friendly community commons.
President Donald Trump is likely pulling this lever unprovoked to tear apart communities’ harmonious fabric as the kind of diversionary tactic that he often utilizes. Trump’s first year has been soundly rated a failure in all major national polls and in each dimension of national and international priorities. Barely 37% say that Trump places the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. As we write about in our new book, Trump’s Ten Commandments, the president has long resorted to “perpetual noise machine” distractions when faced with plummeting poll numbers and challenges on the economy and affordability, seeking to divert attention away from his difficulties. This diversion comes at a real cost to retailers and to the American economy.
Multiple major national polls reveal that the ICE mission is failing, with most Americans condemning these raids as making American cities less safe — with 82% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents leaning in this direction, but also 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Even MAGA-friendly podcaster Joe Rogan launched a harsh takedown of ICE, likening them to the Gestapo secret police of Nazi Germany.
In fact, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, recently showed on Fox TV that, before the ICE invasions, all major categories of crime including violent crimes like murders and carjacks were down last year from 20% to 50%. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has shown this weekend that there has been no surge of undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis to justify what is now five times the number of federal law enforcement officers as there are municipal police.
It appears that even Trump is recoiling, offering a surprising criticism of ICE overreach in a New York Times interview this week. Indeed, unless there is some inexplicable policy goal to get Americans to buy ladders, hammers, toilet seats, piles of bricks, washers, dryers, and garage doors online instead of at neighborhood stores, there is no reason why retailers need to become ground zero.
Why would ICE want to hurt businesses that form the backbone of the American economy? After all, we don’t know how good UPS is at delivering garage doors house-to-house, or if FedEx could really handle deliveries of bricks, sinks, and toilets, if they were bought from Amazon instead of from neighborhood stores. While that notion might seem ridiculous, there is nothing funny or ludicrous about the fact that these administration/ICE overreaches risk serious and genuine economic damage if they continue unabated.
The facts about retailers’ lack of complicity
While ICE might be slipping on the ice, the activists who are attacking America’s most beloved retailers as somehow “complicit” with ICE raids in their stores are similarly slipping up. That narrative is wrong, and retailers need to throw rock salt urgently, to avoid flipping over themselves. Here are the facts, which are too often lost in the crossfire, and should be clarified urgently.
First, retailers need to clarify that they have not been complicit and have had no advance knowledge of these raids. Retailers are not accessories with ICE, nor enablers; they are also victims, caught in the crossfire of a political and legal dispute they did not choose.
This clarification is urgent, because critics on all sides misrepresent what retailers can—and cannot—do. One widely circulated myth holds that retailers invite ICE into their stores. In reality, ICE agents, like any law enforcement officers, may enter public spaces open to all customers without needing a warrant.
Another myth suggests that retailers can simply “ban ICE” from their properties if they choose, with some choosing to do so while other stores invite them in with open arms. That, too, misunderstands the law. A retail store is not a private home. As a public-facing space, retailers cannot selectively exclude certain groups—whether law enforcement or anyone else—from areas open to the general public. A store manager cannot “kick out ICE” the way they might remove a shoplifter. Even if a retailer tried to ban ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, from their otherwise public facing spaces, the law enforcement agency could simply ignore it under the law, and the retailer could be subject to a variety of legal claims, including discrimination or obstruction by the affected government entities. Some have suggested that perhaps stores could put whistles by the cash registers or parking lots, but in reality, retailers have no control.
A third myth claims that retailers are facilitating the arrest of their employees or customers. That is false. As Federal law enforcement officers, ICE agents have the authority to make arrests in any public spaces based on probable cause, without the consent—or cooperation—of the venue. While there are allegations that surveillance cameras operated by such retail partners as Flock Safety are being use to assist ICE raids as some activist investors charge, retailers should assert this electronic collaborating is not true—consistent with denials by Flock Safety.
Retailers did not ask to be put into the middle of America’s political and legal fight over immigration. But they are being drafted nonetheless, and need to scream these facts loudly from the mountaintops to deescalate a worsening situation. Fortunately, they are not likely to use needlessly incendiary language the way some overreacting public officials do. Home Depot’s public statements capture the hard edge of their dilemma: the company has said it is neither notified in advance nor coordinating with immigration enforcement, while also acknowledging that it cannot legally interfere with federal agencies.
Now that retailers find themselves in the middle, they deserve something too often missing from this debate: truth, and they need to be screaming this truth loudly from the mountaintops. They are neither covert Quisling collaborators nor law enforcement-subverting antagonists. They are institutions built to welcome the public of all stripes, not to adjudicate federal policy—and they should not be targeted as such by either side.
Some may wonder, why target retailers? If the goal is to trigger unruly public unrest to justify presidential invocation of the insurrection act as some charge, why not visit the spirited crowds at WWE instead. The average Home Depot store has an impressive 2,000 transactions a day but a WWE slapdown such as Raw or Westlemania easily draws five times as many for 10,000 heated fans. If the goal is to capture foreign guests, why not raid the Metropolitan Opera crowds filled with EU national as performers or the American Ballet Theater or the Colorado Ballet known for their high Russian degree of heritage dancers, or the several hundred heavily promoted high kicking Shen Yun performances each year sponsored by the Chinese Falun Gung religious movement.
It is painful to see ICE arrests taking place in the aisles, parking lots, and entry foyers of Minneapolis stores. Who would have thought that even the raucous reputation of the Minnesota Vikings would look refined compared to the hard-edged, ICE enforcement actions? Perhaps they should drop their cowardly masks to hide their identities by donning Viking helmets with horns to more accurately dress for their retail raids. Regardless of the bias in whatever racial or political agenda may be behind this nightmarish remake of Eugene O’Neil’s dark drama of societal miscreants, The Iceman Cometh, the ICE men are making sure their own approval rating melts, while doing damage to both commerce and community safety.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
China has fulfilled its initial commitment to buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans from the U.S., but it’s not clear if the trade agreement announced in October can withstand President Donald Trump’s ever-shifting trade policy as American farmers are still dealing with high production costs.
Earlier this month, Trump said he would impose 25% tariffs on any country that buys from Iran, which would include China. Then last weekend he threatened to impose 10% tariffs on eight of America’s closest allies in Europe if they continue to oppose his efforts to acquire Greenland.
So the administration’s trade policy continues to change quickly, and Iowa State University agricultural economist Chad Hart said that could undermine the trade agreement with China and jeopardize the commitment by the world’s largest soybean buyer to purchase 25 million metric tons of American soybeans in each of the next three years.
“Those new tariffs — what does that mean for this agreement? Does it throw it out? Is it still binding? That’s sort of the game here now,” Hart said.
Beijing paused any purchase of U.S. soybeans last summer during its trade war with Washington but agreed to resume buying from American soybean farmers after Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in South Korea and agreed to a truce.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the purchasing milestone China has met in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business on Tuesday from the sidelines of a major economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Bessent met with his Chinese counterpart, Vice President He Lifeng. Bessent said China remains committed.
“He told me that just this week they completed their soybean purchases, and we’re looking forward to next year’s 25 million tons,” Bessent said. “They did everything they said they were going to do.”
Last fall, preliminary data from the Department of Agriculture cast doubts on whether China would live up to the agreement because it was slow to begin purchasing American soybeans and there is a lag before the purchases show up in the official numbers.
On Tuesday, the USDA data showed that China had bought more than 8 million tons of U.S. soybeans by Jan. 8, and its daily reports indicated that China placed several more orders since then, ranging from 132,000 tons to more than 300,000 tons.
China has shifted much of its soybean purchases over to Brazil and Argentina in recent years to diversify its sources and find the cheapest deals. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data shows.
Trump is planning to send roughly $12 billion in aid to U.S. farmers to help them withstand the trade war, but farmers say the aid won’t solve all their problems as they continue to deal with the soaring costs of fertilizer, seeds and labor that make it hard to turn a profit right now. Soybean farmers will get $30.88 per acre while corn farmers will receive $44.36 per acre. Another crop hit hard when China stopped buying was sorghum, and those farmers will get $48.11 per acre. The amounts are based on a USDA formula on the cost of production.
That and uncertainty about trade markets and how much farmers will receive for their crops has even some of the most optimistic farmers worried, said Cory Walters, who is an associate professor in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Department of Agricultural Economics. Soybean prices jumped up above $11.50 per bushel after the agreement was announced, but the price has since fallen to about $10.56 per bushel on Tuesday. So prices are close to where they were a year ago and aren’t high enough to cover most farmers’ costs.
“Everything is changing — the land rental market, the fertilizer market, the seed market and it’s all pinching the farmer when they go to do their cash flows. The ability to make a decision is tougher now because of all the uncertainty in the market,” Walters said.
___
This story has been updated to correct that Bessent spoke on Fox Business, not Fox News.
___
Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska. Associated Press writers Didi Tang and Fatima Hussein contributed from Washington.
Business
Wall Street is talking about whether Trump’s Greenland plan will end U.S. ‘primacy’
Published
1 hour agoon
January 21, 2026By
Jace Porter
Investors reacted emphatically to President Trump’s insistence that he won’t back down on his plan to take over Greenland: They hate it. The S&P 500 fell 2% yesterday, even though 81% of its companies have beaten their Q4 earnings expectations so far. The dollar fell off a cliff, losing nearly 1% of its value against a basket of foreign currencies. U.S. bond prices weakened modestly. Gold, the safe-haven investment, hit yet another new record high.
The “sell America” trade is in full effect, in other words. S&P futures were up marginally this morning, suggesting that the bloodletting has been put on hold until traders hear what Trump has to say at the World Economic Forum in Davos later today. Trump offered a small ray of hope before he left for Switzerland when he told NewsNation, “We’ll probably be able to work something out.”
The drama has started a global debate about ending America’s “primacy” as the place for investors to hold assets. Increasingly, analysts and economists are talking about hedging against U.S. risk and deploying their capital in markets which are more predictable. The fact that the S&P 500 underperformed last year compared to markets in Asia and Europe is helping make the case. It’s a rerun in 2026, too. The S&P is down 0.71% year-to-date, while the Europe STOXX 600 is up 0.69% and the South Korean KOSPI is up an astonishing 14%.
“Until the US no longer ‘threatens’ with the use of tariffs … the so-called ‘primacy’ of the U.S. remains at risk of further dissolution, and with it an upending of the geopolitical alignments that have upheld markets in recent years,” Macquarie analysts Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry wrote in a recent note to clients.
Their argument—perhaps one of the most extreme ones that Fortune has ever seen in an investment bank research note—is that when the U.S. goes through a major political convulsion a period of stagnation follows, and thus investors should begin moving their money away from America:
“A line can be traced, for example, from the failure of the U.S. in the Vietnam War and the follow-on decline in U.S, primacy, to the U.S.’s gold reserve depletion, and the subsequent end of the fixed exchange rate system under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. The ‘fiat money’ era that followed was associated with a large decline in the real value of the USD, from 1971 until 1981, as well as a period of inflation and recessions across the 1970s,” they said.
“We should worry about the USD and its relation to other currencies, too. If the reserve status of the USD does depend on the U.S. role in the world—as guarantor of security and a rules-based order—then the events of the past year, and of the past three weeks, in particular, carry the seeds of a reallocation away from the USD, and the search for alternatives, especially among reserve managers. So far, allocators have only found solace in gold, but they may eventually move toward other fiat currencies, too.”
Wall Street got a glimpse of what this might look like when the Danish retirement savings fund AkademikerPension said yesterday that it would sell its $100 million stake in U.S. bonds by the end of the week.
So far, traders are flinching at Trump’s actions. But we haven’t yet seen the kind of full-scale capital flight away from U.S. assets that might, for instance, raise inflation, interest rates or trigger a recession. But the mere fact that Wall Street is discussing it is significant.
Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos told clients in a note at the weekend: “Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the U.S. has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined. In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.”
This note was internally controversial. Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing had to call U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to disavow it.
The CEO does not stand by it but Saravelos’s colleagues may be more sympathetic. Jim Reid and his team, who religiously send an early morning email summarizing market action, did not send their email this morning. The bank told Fortune, “Deutsche Bank Research is independent in their work, therefore views expressed in individual research notes do not necessarily represent the view of the bank’s management.”
In fact, the idea that Europe might move out of U.S. assets is a commonplace inside investment banks right now. At UBS, Paul Donovan told clients earlier this week, “The implications of additional tariffs are more U.S. inflation pressures and a further erosion of the USD’s status as a reserve currency. So far, bond investors do not seem to be taking the threats too seriously.”
This morning he said that the most likely scenario wouldn’t be investors selling U.S. debt but simply refusing to buy new debt, thus reducing the flow of funds that the America is dependent on.
In a tariff war, one under-discussed weapon at Europe’s disposal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument: It has the power to ban U.S. services businesses from the E.U.
“U.S. services exports to the E.U. were $295B in 2024, equivalent to 0.9% of US GDP, suggesting the harm could be much greater if the E.U. pulled this relatively new lever at its disposal than if it responded simply with tariffs, though its economy would be hurt more too,” Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen told clients.
“In short, nobody would win from a new trade war, but the E.U. has ample scope to harm the U.S. if the Greenland situation escalates,” they said.
Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:
- S&P 500 futures were up 0.19% this morning. The last session closed down 2.06%.
- STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.4% in early trading.
- The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was flat in early trading.
- Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 0.41%.
- China’s CSI 300 was flat.
- The South Korea KOSPI was up 0.49%.
- India’s NIFTY 50 was down 0.3%.
- Bitcoin was down to $89K.
Slipping on ICE: innocent retailers are the latest collateral damage from Trump’s perpetual noise machine
Alix Earle Pours Heart Out in Late-Night Post Lamenting Life After Braxton Berrios
While St. Pete Beach residents were locked out after Hurricane Helene, the Mayor was already having repairs done
Trending
-
Politics8 years agoCongress rolls out ‘Better Deal,’ new economic agenda
-
Entertainment9 years agoNew Season 8 Walking Dead trailer flashes forward in time
-
Politics9 years agoPoll: Virginia governor’s race in dead heat
-
Politics9 years agoIllinois’ financial crisis could bring the state to a halt
-
Entertainment9 years agoThe final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
Entertainment9 years agoMeet Superman’s grandfather in new trailer for Krypton
-
Business9 years ago6 Stunning new co-working spaces around the globe
-
Tech8 years agoHulu hires Google marketing veteran Kelly Campbell as CMO
