Raphael Stevens

At the time of writing, the death toll from the quakes is above 5,000, with many still missing and critically injured.
Rescue efforts are continuing — Turkey’s government has deployed nearly 25,000 search and rescue personnel — but emergency workers in both Turkey and Syria say they are completely overwhelmed.
The quakes took place nine hours apart and measured 7.8 in Turkey and 7.5 in Syria on the Richter scale.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks to press after 7.7 and 7.6 magnitude earthquakes hit southern provinces of Turkey, on February 07, 2023 in Ankara, Turkey.
Mustafa Kamaci | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared a three-month state of emergency in 10 of the country’s provinces Tuesday.
Turkey, and neighboring Syria, are reeling from two consecutive earthquakes — the region’s strongest in nearly a century — that have devastated huge swathes of territory, taking lives and buildings with it.

At the time of writing, the death toll from the quakes is above 5,000, with many still missing and critically injured. And shortly after the seismic disaster left tens of thousands of people homeless, a brutal winter storm set in, threatening yet more lives.
The quakes, which took place nine hours apart and measured 7.8 in Turkey and 7.5 in Syria on the Richter scale, destroyed at least 6,000 buildings, many while people were still inside them. Rescue efforts are continuing — Turkey’s government has deployed nearly 25,000 search and rescue personnel — and countries around the world have pledged aid, but emergency workers in both countries say they are completely overwhelmed.

Rescuers and civilians look for survivors under the rubble of collapsed buildings in Kahramanmaras, close to the quake’s epicentre, the day after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake struck the country’s southeast, on February 7, 2023.
Adem Altan | Afp | Getty Images

Syria, already crippled from years of war and terrorism, is the least prepared for such a crisis. The affected regions are home to thousands of internally displaced people already living in dire conditions like tents and makeshift shacks, with very little health and emergency service infrastructure to rely on.
With the dust of the catastrophe still settling, regional analysts are zoning in on the longer-term impacts it could have on Turkey, a country whose 85 million-strong population was already mired in economic problems — and whose military, economy and president have a major impact far beyond its borders.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

CNBC asked media insiders, including Barry Diller, Bela Bajaria, Jeff Zucker and Bill Simmons, for their predictions about what TV will be like in three years.
They also weighed in on which companies will dominate streaming and how big a role sports and gambling will play.
“It will continue to be in decline. It will be crappier. Budgets will get cut,” former Fox executive Peter Chernin said of legacy TV.

Illustration by Elham Ataeiazar

The media industry is in the middle of change. There’s little doubt legacy cable TV will continue to bleed millions of subscribers each year as streaming takes over as the primary way the world watches television.
Still, the details of what’s about to happen to a transitioning industry are unclear. CNBC spoke with more than a dozen leaders who have been among the most influential decision-makers and thinkers in the TV industry over the past two decades to get a sense of what they think will happen in the next three years.

CNBC asked the same set of questions to each interviewee. The following is a sampling of their answers.
In three years, will legacy TV effectively die?
Peter Chernin, The Chernin Group chairman and CEO: It will continue to be in decline. It will be crappier. Budgets will get cut. More scripted programming will migrate away to streaming. There will be more repeats. But it will continue to exist. One of the really interesting questions here – this will be fascinating – the core of linear TV is sports rights. The NFL deal starts next season and is double the price of the previous one. That will suck even more money out of programming budgets. Then you’ve got the NBA deal, those renewal talks will happen this year. That will probably double in price. So you’ve got increasing prices of the most high-profile sports and declining number of homes watching. That will eat away at everything else.

Peter Chernin
Getty Images for Malaria No More 2013

Kevin Mayer, Candle Media co-CEO: It only has a few years left. It’s nearing the end. For entertainment that has no need to be viewed at any specific time, that’s already done. It’s already largely shifted to streaming. Next will be the end of scripted programming on broadcast networks. There’s zero need for that. That’s going to come to a close in the next two or three years. When ESPN finally pulls the plug, the bundle is effectively over. And that will happen relatively soon. Linear TV is in its final death throes.
Barry Diller, IAC chairman: It’s dying, but while syndication is around, even if its diminished, it will still be here. The tail end of these things lasts much longer than anyone predicts.
Ann Sarnoff, former Warner Bros. chairwoman and CEO: The linear bundle will definitely be around in three years, but the number of subscribers will continue to decline, and the average age of the viewers will continue to increase steadily. One big X factor regarding how the cable channel universe evolves will be sports and how big a role streaming services play in sports. The fragmentation of sports rights is good for the leagues but confusing for consumers. The most passionate sports fans will subscribe to everything and find their sport wherever it is, but fragmentation creates a delicate tightrope for the leagues to walk in terms of maintaining mass appeal and engagement, which have driven a stellar sports advertising business.

Bill Simmons, The Ringer founder: Three years feels way too short to me. I think it’s going to play out like it has with terrestrial radio and digital audio. Five years ago, you could have said radio would absolutely be dead soon, and nobody would have challenged you. But it’s still limping along even with much heavier competition from podcasts, streaming, TikTok and everyone else. Even with ad markets dwindling and the advertising being much more localized, it’s not close to being dead yet. It’s like when Michael Corleone says how Hyman Roth has been dying of the same heart attack for the last 20 years. That’s radio. And linear TV will be the same way. It will have a Hyman Roth death, not a Sonny Corleone death.

Bill Simmons at the 2017 Code Conference on May 31, 2017.
Asa Mathat for Vox Media

Jeff Zucker, former CNN president: It will continue to exist. Obviously it will have fewer subs than it does today. News and sports will keep it alive.
Richard Plepler, former HBO CEO: While linear is obviously not the wave of the future, cash flow is cash flow, which means it still hangs on to some form of life.
Bela Bajaria, Netflix chief content officer: Since I started in this business in 1996, people have always talked about linear TV dying. Definitely the pie will be smaller in three years. But there are so many people who watch linear TV, especially sports and news. It will be smaller, but not gone.
Kathleen Finch, Warner Bros. Discovery U.S. networks chief content officer: Linear TV will absolutely still be here. When you look at the size and scope of the linear TV business, it’s huge. People still like to sit down as a group in front of the TV. It’s very communal. And advertisers love it — whether they’re selling a new movie coming out or launching a car sale. The linear TV business will be healthy for a long time. Obviously people’s habits are changing, but as a business, it’s a large, robust, high-margin business. One of the other things so important about linear is it provides the financial ecosystem to feed a lot of streaming platforms. In our group at WBD, it makes about 4,000 hours a year of content, and it’s a huge amount of content that we make to feed the networks. A lot get a second life on streaming – or a first life based on what we determine. To fund the content just for streaming is a bit of a challenge. But because we really have a great margin with a dual revenue system, we super serve that audience on linear.

Byron Allen, founder, chairman, and CEO of Entertainment Studios and Allen Media Group, speaks during the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on May 2, 2022. 
Patrick T. Fallon | Afp | Getty Images

Byron Allen, Entertainment Studios founder and CEO: I think linear TV will exist for a very, very long time. I believe that all of these various platforms – they’re not instead of, they’re additive. Look at human behavior and how we consume content, we’ve only made a richer landscape. When there was the industrial revolution, it was fueled by oil and gas. This is the digital revolution, and it’s fueled by content. Local TV will still be here and much needed. You need local news. And let’s not forget the networks — ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, the big four broadcasters — have locked up the true religion of America, the NFL, for the next 11 years. So you will be watching those networks for sports. Not just on streaming. I think that contract tells you the bundle is here for a while.
Wonya Lucas, Hallmark Media president and CEO: I don’t think this is the death of linear. I just don’t. I think that linear will still be alive and thriving. I do think there will be some shakeout in terms of which services survive and which ones don’t and which ones are bundled together, and there will be some consolidation. I don’t think everyone can have independence. But I think when we start bundling the cost of all the streaming services, you’re looking at the same cost of a cable package at some point.
Chris Winfrey, Charter Communications CEO: It won’t be effectively dead, but it will be significantly more expensive and have fewer subscribers. A lot of that has to do with the rising cost of sports rights. The new NFL rights extension deal will generate about twice as much cost per year starting in the 2023-24 season. That cost is now being distributed over an increasingly smaller base of subscribers, which is pushing up the overall cost of content. But in the next three years, there will still be customers who can afford it. It’ll just be much, much smaller and more expensive. Eventually there will have to be a restructuring of the business.
In three years, which major streaming services will definitely exist?
Zucker: Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Apple and the Disney suite [Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+]. The fifth could be a combo of the remainders: HBO Max, Paramount+ and Peacock.
Jeff Bewkes, former Time Warner CEO: Netflix, Amazon, Disney, HBO Max. Maybe one more that doesn’t make much money or is about break even and hovers near death.
Chernin: All of them with the caveat that there may be some combination of Paramount, Peacock and HBO Max. The big guys don’t want to buy any of them with exception with HBO.
Diller: There’s only one streaming service that’s dominant, now and forever, and that’s Netflix. But many others will exist.

Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC/InterActiveCorp and Expedia Group Barry Diller walks to a morning session at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference on July 07, 2021 in Sun Valley, Idaho.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

Jeff Hirsch, Starz CEO:  Disney, Netfilix, Warner Bros. Discovery, Amazon … and of course, Starz.
Mayer: Apple TV+, Disney+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Max, probably. Paramount+ will be folded in, Peacock will folded in. Maybe they’ll be combined with a smaller service like Starz.
Simmons: You have Hulu, Peacock and Paramount out there as candidates to get swallowed up by a bigger streamer, but who’s doing it? Apple never does anything. Amazon doesn’t need to do anything. HBO/Discovery just went through two mergers in six years. Netflix never does anything. Disney/ESPN seems more likely to shed stuff than buy stuff. So unless Comcast goes on a crazy spending spree, I don’t see anything changing — I think everyone will still be around, just with less employees and way less original content.
Bajaria: Netflix, of course. Disney+ has such a strong library. Many of the others will be interesting. You’re already seeing Showtime and Paramount+ come together. Does Hulu stay in Disney, or does Comcast buy their share out? Does Warner Bros. Discovery stay with Discovery+ and HBO Max, or does it merge with another company? There will be a lot of movement and changes in the streaming landscape. 
Will there be a cable-like bundle of several major streaming services?
Mayer: Yes, I think so. I don’t know if we’ll see bundles between entertainment companies, but there will be some version of a bigger bundle of content you’ll be able to buy at your choice.
Aryeh Bourkoff, LionTree chairman and CEO: It’s more about self-bundling content and other offerings to generate platform and brand loyalty from the consumer. What I think you will also see is the eventual release of exclusive premium content to multiple platforms to better monetize the best content, but the most successful platform relationships will be self-bundled.
Bewkes: I doubt it. I don’t see why you’d need it. Any aggregator’s role would be taking any of the leading streamers and attaching what are laggard, subscale channels. I’m not sure it’s compelling.

Randall Stephenson, then-chairman and chief executive officer of AT&T and Jeff Bewkes, then-chairman and chief executive officer of Time Warner, a few days after the AT&T acquisition of Warner was announced in October 2016.
Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Diller: I do think there will probably be a more efficient way of buying more streaming services, but I don’t think it will be analogous to the cable bundle. One central warehouse who deals with all players and sends one bill — that I don’t think is going to happen. I think it will be somewhat chopped up. But there may be multiplicity, where there may be a much easier way to access a group of streamers than dealing with them individually.
Naveen Chopra, Paramount Global CFO: I think it’s very possible but not necessarily inevitable. On one hand, bundles have tremendous value in terms of increasing acquisition costs, lowering churn and the convenience for consumers. It’s something we definitely embrace. We’ve done a lot of bundles and partnerships that we’ve been very successful with, whether that’s with Sky in Europe or Walmart or T-Mobile in the U.S. A broader bundle that incorporates multiple streaming services could offer some of the same benefits. But there are two really big things you have to solve in trying to effectuate that kind of bundle. The economics is one dimension, and the other is the user interface and customer relationship. Today, streaming services have independent user interfaces and streamers like to own the relationship with the customer. So, you have to give up some economics to be part of that bundle and still have a way of sharing information and enough control over the UI to help build and maintain audiences around the content. There is some experimentation going on with all of these things, and with all sorts of challenges. But I definitely think there’s a possibility of a cable bundle with streaming. It takes time to evolve.
Sarnoff: It’s hard to understand the economics of how that will work. Can there be an aggregator so people wouldn’t have to subscribe to a bunch of different offerings? The problem is always who goes in the middle. That’s the thing: most media companies have wanted to move away from someone controlling their audience, like cable operators, and determining the value of the programming. Bundling makes sense from a consumer perspective, but as a supplier, it’s much more complicated. Paying one rate is simpler, but there’s an imperfect value equation in there for the content supplier/programmer.

Ann Sarnoff attends the 32nd Annual WP Theater’s Women of Achievement Awards Gala at The Edison Ballroom on March 27, 2017 in New York City.
Mike Pont | WireImage | Getty Images

Chernin: I don’t know. A full-blown stand-alone bundle is hard to do. There’s not an obvious aggregator who is going to benefit. Whose best interest is it to subsidize losses to bundle these things together? It’s pretty tough to figure out the economics. The big guys won’t want to take a discount. It would take very complex negotiations.
Mark Lazarus, NBCUniversal Television and Streaming chairman: I think bundles are definitely in the future. It’s sort of already headed in that direction. What’s not there is the ability to replicate the cable bundle user experience. It’s cumbersome, to have to go in and out of every app. It’s buffering. You can’t flip between any two channels, which is instantaneous. It needs to get to a point where the user interface or user experience lets you seamlessly enter or exit content if we’re going to live up to consumer expectations.
Hirsch: Yes. In 18 to 24 months, you’ll start to see a repackaging of the linear business into the digital business. The value of aggregation is really important. You’ll start to see more people partnering up. Right now, everyone is seen as a channel. Ultimately, the big folks will become platforms, much like Amazon is doing today. The big guys are going to become platforms. You’re seeing it now with Showtime as a tile within Paramount+. Other companies’ content will become branded tiles within the larger streaming platforms.
Which companies will dominate as the main hub of streaming?
Simmons: I believe Apple will be the dominant platform because of its connectivity to user behavior through Apple TV and our phones. They make it so goddamn easy; their main page allows you to order movies, see all the new releases, see where you left off on any show or movie you were watching on every other platform … it’s amazing. That’s the only streamer that acts like a one-stop shop for everything I care about. And they will get better and better at perfecting that. Plus, you can keep logging into your different platforms on there through your iPhone. It’s really smart. All roads lead through Apple.
Chernin: YouTube, Amazon and Apple.
Mayer: There will be three categories. The cable guys could repackage streaming offerings. They’re already doing that with their linear offerings. You’ve got the telcos (T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon), and then you’ve got the big digital players — Google, Apple and Amazon.

Kevin Mayer, co-founder and co-chief executive officer of Candle Media, chairman of DAZN Group, speaks at the Milken Institute Asia Summit in Singapore, on Thursday, Sept. 29, 2022.
Bryan van der Beek | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Hirsch: You’re seeing Amazon become a platform, and Warner is now starting to become a platform. In the next three years, we’ll also see compression technology that will allow wireless companies to be true aggregators of streaming services — T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. They’ll become real challengers.
Winfrey: There are a number of platforms — Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire — that are trying to aggregate streaming content. But I think cable has a real advantage. It’s what Comcast and Charter are putting together with our joint venture, Xumo. We will take the voice remote from Comcast, the technology assets from Sky and Xfinity, the leading live video app in Spectrum TV — you combine all that with the fact that Comcast and Charter have a much broader array of programming relationships than anyone else in the market. We also have a powerful distribution channel to deliver this operating platform, both to existing customers who pay for broadband and TV and new sales from our different sales channels — stores, platforms — to put these boxes and smart TV sets in customers’ hands. I think we have the best set of assets and existing relationships to be able to put it together that none of these other platforms can do.
Bourkoff: There hasn’t yet been an aggregator that has incorporated all of video, audio and gaming content — and we don’t foresee one anytime soon. That would be the beacon for consumers in their search for entertainment, in the broadest sense. Absent that, any other aggregation tool would have a different definition for different customers. For example, younger demographics are increasingly moving towards short-form content on TikTok, YouTube and other platforms. Would that be included? The definition of content we want to consume and where we consume it is always changing, particularly in a mature, scarce environment.
Allen: I don’t know if there will be a primary aggregator of this content, but I do believe the consumer is very smart and resourceful and will figure out how to get their needs met at a very efficient price. The key here is to look at the world’s biggest streamer, which is YouTube, and how it is completely free. Good luck putting something in that search bar and it doesn’t come up.
What happens to cable entertainment networks? Will they be sold? Shut down? Or will it look the same?
Chopra: I do think there’s the potential for additional consolidation of cable networks over time. I think in the near term, we’re going to see an evolution of the type and mix of programming you see on cable networks, given the audience declines in that area. The economics of producing expensive original content isn’t going to work for every cable network. They will have to look at different formats, relying on more lower-cost content, library content, etc., but it will definitely evolve.
Bewkes: If you’re a network with news and sports, those can last. General entertainment network subscribers and cash flow will decline. Some might get sold to private equity to harvest cash flow in the three or four years. It’s not like they’ll go bankrupt, but they’re not good for public equity ownership.
Finch: It’s hard for me to say because things seem to change so quickly in this industry. One of the most valuable things is a brand that stands for something. Brands really, really matter. A more generic cable network that lives on older content doesn’t necessarily offer something to someone on a nightly consistent basis. People don’t surf the way they used to. That’s not really how people are wired to watch content anymore. They come to a decision based on how they feel. So it’s true it is more challenging if you’re more of a general entertainment network. You need highly specialized content. Without it, you can’t survive or drive the kind of ad revenue that we can. When you have a HGTV you have endemic advertisers. If you’re Home Depot or Lowe’s, you have to be on HGTV.
Winfrey: The question comes down to what is the value of the content they’re providing? If they’re providing reruns but you can’t find it elsewhere, then it still provides value to the customer. But what you have today is programmers selling us content at increasingly higher prices and asking us to distribute that to largely all of our customers, and at the same time, selling that exact same content either into streaming platforms or creating a direct-to-consumer product themselves at a much lower cost. And many of those services have a much lower security threshold than cable, so customers are able to share passwords and access the same content for free. So, our willingness to continue to fund that for programmers when that content is available for free elsewhere is declining. That means within the linear video construct, you’ll see an increasing number of distributors deciding it no longer makes sense to carry certain content, because customers are already can access it either for free in a pirated fashion or just paying for it at a lower rate.

Lazarus: I don’t think it’s a one-size-fits-all strategy in the future. I think we’ll see some networks combine, like we’ve done. Some will close down that don’t make meaningful contributions to the bottom line. There’s so many networks today. Even with the erosion of the pay-TV bundle down to 50 million, these networks are still a meaningful contributor of revenue and EBITDA to companies like ours. So closing them isn’t necessarily a great answer because you’re giving up profit. Even if it’s a declining profit, it’s still profit. I think that part gets lost a bit in the conversation now. Yes, we are managing a decline and streamers are there to make up for lost revenue and profitability, but those businesses still kick off, in many cases, hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Companies just don’t give that up.
What’s one thing that will become a TV standard that doesn’t exist today?
Chernin: Windowing. That’s the most likely change. Right now, the current economic model is two things: pure vertical integration, where you produce and own everything, and long-term exclusive licenses. Neither make sense. You can’t produce enough good content and it’s wildly overexpensive. What’s the value of 5- to 10-year-old shows? Right now, a huge amount of money is spent for those shows. Media companies would be better off doing three-year licenses and saving 20% to 30% on the cost. Cable networks will be interested in buying old reruns from other streaming platforms. It’ll be brand-new programming to a different audience. What defines programming is what’s new. When “Sopranos” aired in syndication on A&E, it’s didn’t make HBO any weaker. You’ll see streamers start selling programming to cable and to one another, and it will produce value both to the company that owned it and the company that bought it in syndication.
Simmons: I believe Apple, out of nowhere, will start making their own awesome televisions that have Apple TV embedded in them. It’s kind of incredible that this hasn’t happened yet. They have every other piece of the streaming puzzle in place — literally, all of it — except for the actual TV. Why would they want Samsung, LG and whomever else to keep innovating on their smart TVs and eventually cut Apple out of the entire ecosystem? They’ll just make a better TV and crush them. I wish I could bet on this.
Sarnoff: A “metaverse” which offers commerce, gaming, social interaction, sports, news and entertainment is inevitable, but I think we’re quite a ways from that being the primary way people consume media. It will be interesting to watch the metaverse evolve in parallel to streaming and other direct entertainment offerings. The offering that best engages and entertains the consumer will win.

Chairman, WarnerMedia Jeff Zucker attends CNN Heroes at American Museum of Natural History on December 08, 2019 in New York City.
Mike Coppola | Getty Images

Zucker: The ability to bet and/or gamble while you’re watching sports on TV will be much easier. You’ll be able to go through the TV to place a bet with a remote control, or your voice. It requires partnership from the betting companies, but that shouldn’t be a problem.
Hirsch: Content without borders. Artificial intelligence technology will make subbing and dubbing of content simple. AI will allow you to watch content in your home language without a third-party dubbing it for you. The world shrinks that way from a content perspective.
Bajaria: More people will have access to incredible global stories on demand. The average person will gain access to more content than ever before.
Allen: I think we’re going to see more AI integrated into content, and it’s going to be more intuitive, so when people watch the content it’ll be far more advanced in recommending content for you. I think AI is going to help understand the touch points in content and how to make it better and more compelling and engaging.
Winfrey: Unified search. You’ll have a discovery and recommendation engine combined with a voice remote that allows for a seamless experience for the customer living inside a single platform. That will allow a viewer to pick and choose what content they want month to month — either live video or streaming.
Bourkoff: Sports is being unlocked in a big way. It’s the last major bastion of content that must be watched live, which begs a different approach. As owners of valuable IP, professional sports leagues may increasingly go direct, either on their own or via a partnership model, and monetize in other ways — from advertising and sponsorships to commerce and experiences, including gaming and sports betting. We are witnessing early stages of this dynamic with deals like “NFL Sunday Ticket” on YouTube and the MLS deal with Apple TV.

Los Angeles Chargers running back Austin Ekeler, center, runs for extra yardage while Tennessee Titans linebacker Monty Rice, left, and safety Andrew Adams (47) attempt a tackle during the second half at SoFi Stadium on Sunday, Dec. 18, 2022 in Los Angeles, CA.
Allen J. Schaben | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Finch: There is something that is beginning to exist now that I’m absolutely fascinated to see where it goes. It’s the technology that allows viewers to choose the content they watch as they are watching. Like the Netflix show “Kaleidoscope.” Handing the editorial decision-making to fans is so seductive. It’s an opportunity for a piece of content to be watched multiple times. There’s just a few pieces of content that’s tried this, but the technology is there, and it’s an exciting new development in content creation and consumption. It gives the audience an interactive way to view these things. It’s just beginning to be utilized and a lot of people are experimenting.
Lazarus: Much of TV consumption is being done on the biggest, best screen in your home. It’s all coming through your living room flat-screen TV. What we see, and I think will change over the next three years, is the amount of customization people are able to have to curate their own abilities and to bundle themselves. How do you order your streaming apps? While it’s not a seamless user experience to go between Peacock and Netflix or something else, you can place them in whatever order you want on the screen. The degree of customization is there. That’s coming to the individual streamers, too. We’re working on a lot of customization for our consumers. Consumers would like to have that interactivity. If you’re on a live sports channel, you can curate your own replays and then bounce back to live. It’s the next iteration of interactivity.
WATCH: CNBC’s full interview with IAC Chairman Barry Diller

Disclosure: CNBC is part of NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Traffic and congestion have been worsening in American cities for decades.
The average American driver lost 51 hours and  $869 in valued time by sitting in traffic in 2022, a 54% jump from the previous year, according to a report by INRIX, a global traffic tracker.

In 2019, before the pandemic, traffic snarls cost the average American nearly 100 hours and nearly $1,400.
Highway traffic eased through 2020 and 2021, during the worst of the pandemic, but now it’s back. What’s more, the post-Covid world might be presenting new challenges, such as an increase in traffic in the suburbs, with changing driving patterns of hybrid workers.
What to do about it has divided opinion across the country. Some experts say cities need more of everything: widened roads, more public transit, and better urban design and planning. Widening roads alone is a commonly proposed fix, but experts say it’s only part of the solution.
Some economists, for example, argue that congestion pricing is the only way to reduce traffic. But that route is politically controversial.
Although experts say it has been successfully implemented in cities like London and Singapore, it has encountered some resistance in American population centers like New York City.
Watch the video to learn more.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

CNBC’s Jim Cramer warned investors to brace for market turbulence ahead by consolidating their portfolios.
“The charts, as interpreted by Carolyn Boroden, suggest that the incredible rally in the S&P 500 might be running out of steam,” Cramer said.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Monday warned investors to brace for market turbulence ahead by consolidating their portfolios.
“The charts, as interpreted by Carolyn Boroden, suggest that the incredible rally in the S&P 500 might be running out of steam,” he said, adding, “She’s not necessarily saying we’re headed for a brutal near-term decline, but you might want to pull in your horns for the next few weeks.”

Stocks fell on Monday as investors took profits after the stock market’s strong start to the year. The S&P 500 is up more than 7% this year.
Cramer first explained that Boroden measures past swings in a stock or index and determines key levels by running them through Fibonacci ratios, which technicians use to spot patterns that can signal when a stock or other security could shift directions. 
A cluster of Fibonacci timing cycles clustered together is a sign that “something big” could happen, he added. To explain Boroden’s analysis of the S&P 500, Cramer examined the weekly chart of the index going back to July 2021.

Arrows pointing outwards

She sees six Fibonacci time cycles coming due in this week, which means the odds of a bearish reversal are higher than she’d like, according to Cramer. He added that there are three more timing cycles coming due near the end of the month, in the week ending on Feb. 24.
“Boroden also says that when you look at the daily chart, you’ve got similar timing cycles that are forecasting the same thing … a meaningful pullback,” Cramer said.

He said that while these signs don’t guarantee a reversal, Boroden does believe that investors should prepare themselves for the possibility that February could be a tough month for the market.
“She recommends watching for any sell signals so you can ring the register and protect your profits,” he said.
For more analysis, watch Cramer’s full explanation below.

Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing

Click here to download Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest smarter.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

It’s that time again! “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer rings the lightning round bell, which means he’s giving his answers to callers’ stock questions at rapid speed.

Loading chart…

Loading chart…

Loading chart…

Loading chart…

Nucor Corp: “I personally think that Nucor has moved up too much. … I have my eye on $160 to $165 and not before that.”

Loading chart…

C3.ai Inc: “This stock has run up as part of the almost meme-like interest in [artificial intelligence]. … Ring the register.”

Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing

Click here to download Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest smarter.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

When the HBO black comedy “The White Lotus” premiered in the summer of 2021, it took viewers to Hawaii’s sunny Maui. It was a perfectly timed pandemic escape full of intrigue, satire, sex and bloodshed.
The second season featured a mostly new cast — save for Jennifer Coolidge and her character’s quietly sinister husband, played by Jon Gries — and a new location, Taormina, on the rugged southern Italian island of Sicily. 

Both seasons put the spotlight on so-called “screen tourism” — the growing tendency of travelers to flock to locations they see in television shows and movies.
U.S. Google searches about visiting Italy spiked nearly 20% between October — after the second season premiered — and December of 2022, according to the online research company Semrush.
Travel bookings by Americans to Italy nearly doubled during this time too, according to Jim Corridore, insights manager at the market research firm Similarweb.
Since the beautifully shot settings are as much a character as the cast, viewers are now clamoring to find out where the third season will be filmed.

A not-so-subtle hint

Many viewers caught a not-so-subtle hint in the final show, when Daphne (played by actress Meghann Fahy), toasting at dinner, said, “Next year, the Maldives.”

But we’re not so sure.

The Maldives was named-dropped near the end of season two of “The White Lotus,” leading fans to speculate it would be the next filming location.
Levente Bodo | Moment | Getty Images

HBO has not announced where the next season will be set.
However, in October 2022, show creator Mike White implied it could be Asia, when he told the entertainment news website Deadline: “I think it’d be fun to maybe go to a whole different continent. You know, we did Europe — and maybe Asia, something crazy like that, that would be fun.”

A second theory

There’s so much excitement generated by the show — and its borderline fanatical fanbase — that any statement made by White is quickly pounced upon.
That’s what happened when he made a brief video message for writer Evan Katz Ross while purportedly on a beach in Thailand last month.
Ross posted the video to his Twitter account, which has some 1.5 million views. Cue the theories that “The White Lotus” is heading to the Southeast Asian nation known as “The Land of Smiles.”

The front-runner: Japan

But the smart money is on Japan — specifically, the historical former capital of Kyoto.
In season one, Four Seasons Resort Maui at Wailea played host to the show. In season two, it was the San Domenico Palace Taormina Four Seasons Hotel.
Like Maui and Taormina, Kyoto also has a Four Seasons hotel. The Zen-like five-star hotel is built around an ancient pond where a famed warlord lived during the 12th century.

Japan has three Four Seasons hotels — two in Tokyo and one in Kyoto (pictured).
Source: Four Seasons Kyoto

The location plays into hints that spirituality will be the focus of season three too.
“The first season highlighted money, and then the second season is sex,” White told Deadline. “I think the third season will be a satirical and funny look at death and eastern religion and spirituality.”
He even let slip that “Jennifer [Coolidge] is my friend and everybody loved her in the first season, and I was like, ‘I can’t go to Italy without Jennifer.’ And maybe that’s still the case. Like, maybe you can’t go to Japan without Jennifer either.”
Indeed, in Japanese culture the lotus flower is revered for being able to emerge beautiful and pristine from dirty water, symbolizing enlightenment. 
“Enlightened” is the name of another HBO series, created by Mike White, which ran for two seasons and starred Laura Dern.
We asked Four Seasons Kyoto whether plans to shoot there are indeed afoot — but representatives declined to comment.
If Kyoto is indeed the location, the hotel and city can expect a substantial uptick to its global profile once the show airs.

The impact of ‘screen tourism’

For the premiere and finale of both seasons of “The White Lotus,” the Four Seasons hotels in Maui and Taormina experienced some of their highest search traffic ever, said Marc Speichert, the chief commercial officer at Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts.
“In Maui, for example, during the first season, we experienced a 425% year-over-year increase in website visits and a 386% increase in availability checks,” he said.
San Domenico Palace Taormina, which has the iconic steep slopes of smoldering Mt. Etna as its backdrop, is closed for the season until mid-March, but then fully booked until May — so hopes of skipping down the corridors like Mia and Lucia will have to wait.

Two characters spent the night in Villa Tasca in the second season of “The White Lotus.” To do the same, prepare to pay around $6,000 per night.
Camillo Balossini | Mondadori Portfolio | Getty Images

But other filming locations in Sicily have also become popular, such as Villa Tasca in the Sicilian capital city of Palermo.
The 16th-century estate, which has four bedrooms and 20 acres of gardens, is listed on Airbnb for around $6,000 per night.
Beyond “The White Lotus,” the broader trend of traveling to visit iconic TV and movie locations continues to grow.

Netflix shows like “Bridgerton” and “Emily in Paris” are said to have increased travel interest to Bath, England (pictured) and France, respectively.
Bento Fotography | Moment | Getty Images

Jon Gieselman, president of Expedia Brands, said, “We’re seeing a surge in trips to culture capitals and TV shows playing a role in tourism.”
It’s very much a global phenomenon too. When polled, two-thirds of global travelers have considered — and nearly 40% have booked — trips to destinations after seeing them in films or television, according to an Expedia report published in November 2022. More