Business

Highly paid ESPN host Pat McAfee publicly accused a veteran network executive of trying to “sabotage” his show.
ESPN isn’t planning a suspension of McAfee at this time but is looking into the host’s comments, according to a person familiar with the matter.
McAfee’s show drew criticism earlier this week when NFL star Aaron Rodgers incorrectly accused ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel of being associated with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Both McAfee and Kimmel work for Disney.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – FEBRUARY 09: Former NFL player and host Pat McAfee speaks on radio row ahead of Super Bowl LVII at the Phoenix Convention Center on February 9, 2023 in Phoenix, Arizona.
Mike Lawrie | Getty Images

ESPN’s Pat McAfee problem is getting more complicated.
On Friday, the host and former NFL punter publicly attacked longtime ESPN executive Norby Williamson, accusing him of “actively trying to sabotage” him by leaking information to reporters.

The New York Post reported on McAfee’s relatively low ratings Thursday, noting “since the inception of McAfee’s show on ESPN in the fall, Stephen A. Smith and ‘First Take’ are handing McAfee a 583,000 viewer lead-in, and McAfee is maintaining just 302,000, which is a 48% drop.”
McAfee implied Williamson may have leaked the idea for the story to New York Post reporter Andrew Marchand. Marchand declined to comment.
“I believe Norby WIlliamson is the guy who is attempting to sabotage our program,” McAfee said. “I’m not 100% sure. That is just seemingly the only human that has information and then somehow that information gets leaked, and it’s wrong.”
McAfee didn’t specifically say what information was wrong. Over the years, other ESPN talent have speculated that Williamson has leaked private details, including contract information, according to people familiar with the matter. On Friday, former ESPN journalist Jemele Hill posted on social media platform X “I can relate” with regard to McAfee’s comments about Williamson.
There’s no evidence Williamson has leaked information. Williamson, who has worked for ESPN for nearly 40 years, declined to comment through an ESPN spokesperson.

There’s also a contingent of ESPN employees who have grumbled about McAfee’s show and his large contract. McAfee signed a five-year, $85 million contract with ESPN in May.
ESPN management values the importance of both McAfee and Williamson and is looking into the details of why McAfee denigrated an executive, according to a person familiar with the matter. There is no planned suspension for McAfee, and ESPN hopes to find a path forward for both Williamson and McAfee, according to a person familiar with the matter.
An ESPN spokesperson declined to comment.
Earlier this week, McAfee found himself in hot water for providing a platform for New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers to disparage a fellow Disney employee. Rodgers, a frequent guest on McAfee’s show, incorrectly suggested ABC late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel would be included in court documents related to late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Kimmel fired back Tuesday, tweeting Rodgers’ “reckless words put [his] family in danger.”
McAfee later apologized over the Kimmel comments.
“I could see exactly why Jimmy Kimmel felt the way he felt, especially with his position,” McAfee said Wednesday, noting that Rodgers “did go too far.”
ESPN on Friday also addressed Rodgers’ comments about Kimmel.
“Aaron made a dumb and factually inaccurate joke about Jimmy Kimmel. It should never have happened. We all realized that in the moment,” ESPN executive Mike Foss told Front Office Sports.
The New York Post previously reported that McAfee has paid Rodgers “millions” to appear on his show. The former MVP and Super Bowl champion, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars in the NFL, joined the Jets last year after playing for over a decade with the Green Bay Packers. He missed the season with an Achilles tendon injury.
A representative for Rodgers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. More

Eli Lilly is shaking up the pharmaceutical industry with a new website offering telehealth prescriptions and direct home delivery of certain drugs, such as weight loss treatments, to expand patient access.
The company’s direct-to-consumer push won’t necessarily upend the pharmaceutical industry and the traditional prescription drug supply chain, according to some analysts. 
But other drugmakers could follow suit with their own direct-to-consumer models and add pressure on what critics call a complex pharmaceutical industry.

Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

Eli Lilly is shaking up the pharmaceutical industry with a new website offering telehealth prescriptions and direct home delivery of certain drugs, including its red-hot weight loss treatment Zepbound, to expand patient access. 
The company’s direct-to-consumer push announced Thursday, the first of its kind for a big drugmaker, won’t necessarily upend the pharmaceutical industry and the prescription drug supply chain alone, according to some analysts.

But other drugmakers could follow suit with their own direct-to-consumer models, according to some analysts. That could add more pressure on what many critics call a complex system for distributing, pricing and prescribing drugs in the U.S. — a structure they say has led to higher prices and fewer choices for patients.
“There’s always a possibility for disruption. I think you should never rule out any sort of disruption,” BMO Capital Markets analyst Evan Seigerman told CNBC. “I don’t think that is necessarily happening tomorrow, but I think that you should never assume that things can’t change.”
Lilly’s new platform comes as other companies move to disrupt the drug system in some way, in part as they face more political pressure to cut consumer costs and increase pricing transparency.
Those actions come as lawmakers target drug supply chain middlemen in new legislation and as the Biden administration takes its own steps to rein in prices of medications, such as by giving Medicare the power to negotiate down drug prices for the first time in its six-decade history.
Eli Lilly said its new effort — dubbed LillyDirect — aims to increase access to medicines for chronic diseases, including the highly popular weight loss drugs. 

Those treatments, which have soared in demand over the last year as they help patients shed unwanted pounds, are plagued by supply constraints and concerns about potentially harmful knockoffs. Patients also face long waitlists to meet with obesity medicine specialists who can prescribe the drugs to them, a problem Eli Lilly hopes to address, according to Seigerman.
Eli Lilly’s Zepbound won Food and Drug Administration approval just two months ago, but some analysts say it could garner more than $1 billion in sales in its first year on the market.

LillyDirect won’t significantly disrupt the industry

Eli Lilly’s site eliminates the need for a patient to visit the doctor’s office to get a prescription and, in some cases, for a pharmacy to fill it. 
But some analysts said Eli Lilly’s site alone will not significantly threaten the traditional drug distribution system, which involves a multitiered network of manufacturers, drug wholesalers, pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.
“I don’t think PBMs and the whole infrastructure that we have are going anywhere,” Seigerman told CNBC. “I think what [Eli Lilly] really did was identify some friction points in getting these products [weight loss drugs] to patients, and they’re coming up with a way to solve for that.” 
“From my understanding, it’s just that there’s no retail pharmacy where a patient is having to go hunt for that particular [drug] dose, it’s being shipped right to them,” he said of Eli Lilly’s services.
Eli Lilly’s site connects patients with an independent telehealth provider who can prescribe any FDA-approved weight loss drug or other medications for diabetes and migraines. If the prescribed treatment is Eli Lilly’s, the patient can have a third-party online pharmacy deliver it to their door. 
Patients will also receive Eli Lilly’s discounts for drugs if they qualify for the company’s savings-card programs, the company noted in a release. One program allows people with insurance coverage for Zepbound, which costs more than $1,000 per month, to pay as little as $25 out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, those whose insurance does not cover the drug may be able to pay as low as $550.
Some experts view that transparent pricing as a shot across the bow to PBMs, the largest of which are owned by CVS, UnitedHealth Group and Cigna.
Drugmakers have long complained that they give PBMs steep drug discounts in exchange for higher placement on a formulary — an insurance plan’s list of preferred medications — only for those middlemen to not pass along savings to patients. 
But Eli Lilly’s savings-card program and new site won’t cut PBMs out of the equation.
“If you still use your health insurance to get these drugs through [Eli Lilly’s] website, it’s still going to get processed by a PBM,” Jeff Jonas, a Gabelli Funds portfolio manager, told CNBC.
Patients who get drugs such as Zepbound from Eli Lilly’s site can choose to pay with cash to avoid PBMs altogether. But Bernstein analysts said in a Thursday note that they expect the “vast majority” of potential weight loss drug users to get medications through insurance. 

Other drugmakers could follow Eli Lilly

More pharmaceutical companies could adopt a similar approach to Eli Lilly’s.  
Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Louise Chen said drugmakers could benefit the most from using a direct-to-consumer pharmacy model for high-selling drugs.
“Cause of the scale of your effort, it [would] probably make sense for bigger drugs,” Chen wrote in an email to CNBC. “You get more bang for the buck and you are reaching more people.”
But Chen said it may be more difficult for a drugmaker to pursue a direct-to-consumer model with smaller, more specialized drugs, such as treatments for complex, chronic, or rare medical conditions. For example, some drugs require specialized training for administration, such as injecting or infusing a therapy into a patient’s vein through an IV. 
Drugmakers that do adopt a direct-to-consumer approach could add even more pressure on the nation’s traditional drug supply chain after other companies moved to simplify the system in recent months.
That includes CVS Health, which announced plans to overhaul its business model for pricing prescription drugs in December, adopting a model similar to billionaire Mark Cuban’s direct-to-consumer pharmacy, Cost Plus Drugs. Health-care giant Cigna also announced in November that its PBM will offer a pricing model similar to Cuban’s venture.
Cost Plus Drugs aims to drive down the price of medicines broadly by selling them at a set 15% markup over their cost, plus pharmacy fees.
That company is already shaking up the broader health-care industry: CVS suffered a blow over the summer when a major California health insurer, Blue Shield of California, announced it will no longer use the company as its PBM and instead will partner with several other businesses, including Cuban’s firm and Amazon Pharmacy.  More

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Florida’s plan to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.
The agency’s greenlight is a first-in-the-nation move that faces fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry but could reduce costs for Americans. 
But Florida’s newly approved plan will likely face hurdles before it takes effect, including potential lawsuits from the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharmacist Thomas Jensen looks over a prescription drug at the Rock Canyon Pharmacy in Provo, Utah, on May 9, 2019.
George Frey | Reuters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday approved Florida’s plan to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, a first-in-the-nation move that could reduce costs for Americans but faces fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry.
The regulator also said it was committed to working with other states seeking to import drugs from Canada. 

The FDA’s approval of Florida’s plan is a significant stride forward in a broader, yearslong effort to rein in drug costs in the U.S. Patients shell out significantly more for medicines than they do in Canada and some other countries.
Drug importation could open up a new and cheaper source of drugs beyond the retail and mail-order pharmacies that Americans typically rely on to fill prescriptions. 
Along with Florida, other states such as Colorado, North Dakota and Vermont have their own drug importation plans in place, which will require FDA approvals. More than five states have asked the agency to greenlight their programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But Florida’s newly approved plan will likely face hurdles before it takes effect, including potential lawsuits from the pharmaceutical industry.
Drugmakers have long argued that importation may introduce counterfeit medicines into the U.S. supply chain and harm patients — a concern the FDA previously raised because the agency can’t guarantee the safety of those drugs.

However, the FDA’s Friday approval appears to have guardrails that aim to mitigate potential safety issues. 
Before Florida can distribute Canadian drugs, the state must send the FDA details on the medications it plans to import, ensure that those treatments are not counterfeit or ineffective and relabel those drugs to be consistent with FDA-approved labeling. 
Florida must also submit quarterly reports to the agency about cost savings and potential safety issues, among other obligations. The FDA’s approval allows Florida to import drugs for two years from the date of the first drug shipment. 
“These proposals must demonstrate the programs would result in significant cost savings to consumers without adding risk of exposure to unsafe or ineffective drugs,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in a statement. 
The pharmaceutical industry pushed back on the FDA’s move on Friday. 
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s biggest lobbying group, called the FDA’s approval of Florida’s plan “reckless” and said it is considering “all options for preventing this policy from harming patients.”
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but the importation of unapproved medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, poses a serious danger to public health,” Stephen Ubl, CEO of PhRMA, said. “Politicians need to stop getting between Americans and their health care.”
The group sued the FDA in 2020 over a Trump administration plan to import Canadian drugs, but that lawsuit was later dismissed. 
President Joe Biden issued an executive order in July 2021 that included a call for the FDA to work with states on plans for importing drugs from Canada.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

Despite being one of the oldest media formats, radio has showed resilience through the years.
Radio’s stability is in stark contrast to the rapidly declining pay TV industry, a fellow legacy medium.
Radio does face headwinds, but top players such as iHeartMedia are positioned to lean on digital formats, too.

Airline passengers between flights patronize the iHeartRadio facility at Denver International Airport in Denver on Jan. 19, 2014.
Robert Alexander | Archive Photos | Getty Images

It’s a familiar refrain: “Legacy media is dead” — unless you’re talking about radio.
Despite being one of the oldest media formats, dating back to the 1890s, radio has maintained relatively stable listenership over the past decade. Pay TV, while newer, has faced more significant declines.

In 2009, 92% of Americans age 12 or older listened to traditional, or terrestrial, radio in a given week, according to data from Pew Research published last year. By 2022, that number fell 10 percentage points. Pay TV penetration, on the other hand, fell 20 percentage points between 2014 and 2023, according to data firm Statista. In the third quarter of last year, the pay TV industry shrank at a record pace, analysts at MoffettNathanson said in their latest cord-cutting report.
“Terrestrial radio has stayed steady even as other mediums like satellite radio, podcasts and Apple CarPlay have come on board,” said Guggenheim media analyst Curry Baker.
“Historically, radio personalities and stations have engaged with local audiences,” which tend be “sticky,” Baker said. “Cable networks never really did that.”
Radio has maintained the upper hand on many media formats partly because of its accessibility and relative lack of cost barriers. Most cars come already equipped with access to AM and FM radio at no additional cost, and according to Statista data from 2022, the majority of U.S. drivers choose to listen to terrestrial AM/FM radio over any other form of entertainment on the road.
But radio listenership has also been bolstered by the unique ability of stations to capture local audience loyalty. Listeners tune in to hear familiar voices, such as Elvis Duran on New York’s Z100 or Ryan Seacrest on Los Angeles’ KIIS-FM. Conservative commentators have also traditionally commanded large followings on their radio shows, such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Contests and sweepstakes represent another unique draw to terrestrial radio. Major stations are known to allow listeners to call in and win prizes such as tickets to concerts or cash.
“Radio is an interactive medium, and part of that is contesting,” Tom Poleman, chief programming officer at iHeartMedia, told CNBC. “For over half of our listeners, contesting is one of the reasons that they come to radio. Over time, contests has become more accessible with digital options like text-to-win and social media contests. Radio is also inherently social: 80% of our listeners say that they come because they trust our host to be the voices of the community.”
iHeartMedia, which controls 860 stations across the U.S., captures an average of 250 million monthly listeners, the company said in November, the largest reach of any radio broadcaster in the U.S.

Over-the-air evolution

Like other legacy media, radio has faced increasing encroachment from digital audio formats, such as podcasting and streaming platforms. Radio giants such as iHeartMedia and SiriusXM have adopted podcasts and digital output as part of their business models.
Podcasts, in many respects, function as the streaming iteration of radio, in the same way that Netflix was the streaming iteration of cable.
Top radio companies have positioned themselves to benefit from the podcasting boom, in stark contrast to some media companies’ contentious relationship with streaming, as many have struggled to migrate their declining cable revenue to streaming.
“There’s something about being able to focus on a human voice that is compelling,” Poleman said. “Our radio hosts have naturally become great podcasters and we weren’t surprised to see the explosion in podcasting. We feel it’s very complimentary toward broadcast radio.”
Still, just like TV, radio faces advertising headwinds as the industry looks to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic slump, said Guggenheim’s Baker.
In November, iHeartMedia CEO Bob Pittman noted ongoing “uncertainty” in the advertising industry. Multiplatform revenue was down 5.1% for the company year over year in the third quarter of 2023, primarily caused by a “decrease in broadcast advertising due to a challenging macroeconomic environment and a decline in political advertising,” the company said in a press release.
Guggenheim forecasts iHeartMedia’s broadcast advertising revenue to decline about 23% for the full year 2023 when compared with 2019 levels.
Likewise, other media companies have reported declining ad revenues within their TV units in recent months. CNN owner Warner Bros. Discovery reported a 12% drop in ad revenue for its TV segment for the third quarter of last year. Global TV ad revenue for 2023 is expected to be down 18% year over year, according to media investment firm GroupM.
Baker also forecasts a “flat to down” broadcast revenue outlook for iHeartMedia and the terrestrial radio industry as a whole. But in the face of pay TV’s rapid decline, radio is faring well amid the broad contractions in the media industry.
A spokesperson for the iHeartMedia noted that listening habits have changed since 2019 as more customers make the switch to listening on a digital platform, contributing to the decline in advertising revenue from broadcast.
The representative also pointed towards the company’s growth in total revenue when compared to 2019, which factors in advertising revenue from both digital and broadcast platforms. For the third quarter of 2023, iHeartMedia brought in $953 million in revenue, they said, while in 2019’s third quarter, the company captured $948.3 million in revenue.
“For [radio broadcasters], the hope is you can stabilize the terrestrial business enough and continue to grow the digital business to where digital growth offsets terrestrial secular pressures,” Baker said. “If you model this out, the digital business simply overtakes the legacy terrestrial business in the next five to six years.”Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

Since its founding three and a half years ago, Blank Street Coffee has grown to 74 coffee shops across New York City; Boston; Washington, D.C.; and London.
Blank Street CEO Vinay Menda estimates that the chain’s new subscription program could eventually account for 30% to 40% of its customers.
The program, which has about 5,000 members, charges $8.99 or $17.99 weekly for 14 drinks.

The exterior of a Blank Street Coffee location.
Source: Blank Street Coffee

Blank Street Coffee’s shops have taken over New York City as they lure in customers with cheap lattes and cold brew.
Now the upstart chain aims to attract even more consumers who want to slash their coffee budgets through a subscription program.

The Blank Street Regulars program, which opened to the public this summer, has drawn roughly 5,000 paying members — and another 4,000 are on the waiting list to join.
For more than a decade, startups have turned to subscription models to generate guaranteed revenue, which can make their businesses more attractive to investors and juice their valuations. More established companies have also turned to monthly subscriptions as they try to draw regular customers looking for a deal. For example, members of Panera Bread’s Unlimited Sip Club pay $11.99 per month for “free” coffee, tea, caffeinated lemonades and fountain sodas every two hours.
Since its launch three and a half years ago as a coffee cart in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Blank Street has grown to 74 locations across New York City, London, Boston and Washington. The typical Blank Street location is small, with limited seating and a semi-automated Eversys espresso machine to make drinks.
The startup has raised roughly $100 million, with backing from the likes of General Catalyst, Tiger Global and a co-founder of Warby Parker, according to PitchBook.
As of March, the company was valued at $177 million, down from its prior valuation of $218 million roughly a year earlier, according to PitchBook. Many startups have seen their valuations decline as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates and economists worried about a recession.

The chain has its critics. Blank Street’s rapid growth — and venture funding — have drawn grumbling and skepticism from some coffee drinkers. However, its prices have helped attract customers, especially as the cost of coffee beans soared in 2021 and $8 lattes became more common.
In New York City, ordering an oat milk latte today will set a Blank Street customer back $5 — below the $5.45 charged by Dunkin’ or the $6.15 by Starbucks for comparable sizes. The chain’s lower overhead costs, such as the smaller square footage and fewer employees needed to make cappuccinos, help it charge cheaper prices for its coffee.
But Blank Street Regulars, as the chain calls its subscription members, can save even more money on their coffee. Members pay either $8.99 or $17.99 a week.
The cheaper plan covers basic drinks, such as teas, hot brewed coffee, Americanos and double espressos, while the more expensive option allows members to buy a wider range of beverages, including cold brew. To curb losses and avoid the fate of MoviePass, a movie theater subscription service that offered unlimited tickets before declaring bankruptcy, Blank Street caps the total number of drinks per week at 14, and customers have to wait at least two hours to buy another drink.
Blank Street CEO and co-founder Vinay Menda estimates that about 30% to 40% of its customer base will eventually become members.
“I don’t ever think it’s going to be the majority of customers,” he told CNBC.
For now, Blank Street has capped the number of Regulars to ensure that its coffee shops and baristas don’t get overwhelmed by demand.
“The more we can build capacity and build our stores out, the more we want to keep unlocking access for more people,” Blank Street’s Chief Product Officer Dan Hill said.
The chain is working to improve capacity at its locations so it can accommodate those on the waitlist eventually. Those improvements include installing a second or third espresso machine so baristas can make more drinks quickly.
Blank Street also recently launched Regulars across the pond in its London locations. For £12, or roughly $15, customers can buy any drink on their menu, with similar limitations to its U.S. program.
The program already has a couple hundred members, according to Hill. In the U.K., Blank Street faces stiffer competition from Pret A Manger, the ubiquitous sandwich shop with its own coffee subscription program. But Menda said he thinks Blank Street’s version will win over customers who care more about coffee.
Blank Street pursued a subscription program over a traditional loyalty program because its customers wanted an easy, fast way to benefit from visiting its coffee shops regularly, according to Hill. The chain’s relative youth gave it flexibility in designing the program.
Hill said Blank Street is already thinking of ways to expand the program, such as adding family and group plans.
“We don’t have to deal with the way a loyalty program that was designed 10 years ago and now has millions of members who are accustomed to the way things were,” Hill said.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

ESPN and the NCAA have signed a new media rights agreement that runs from 2024 to 2032.
The deal is roughly triple the value of the current deal.
The agreement will provide more exposure and revenue to women’s sports.

An ESPN GameDay logo is displayed at the Capital One Orange Bowl game between the Georgia Bulldogs and the Florida State Seminoles at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida, on Dec. 30, 2023.
Peter Joneleit | Icon Sportswire | Getty Images

The NCAA and ESPN have reached a new eight-year media rights deal worth more than $115 million annually, as the value of sports media rights reaches new heights.
The new agreement carries an annual value of roughly three times the current 14-year deal, which pays about $40 million annually.

An NCAA spokesperson confirmed an additional 25%, or $28.75 million annually, will help with production and marketing costs.
“ESPN and the NCAA have enjoyed a strong and collaborative relationship for more than four decades, and we are thrilled that it will continue as part of this new, long-term agreement,” said ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro.
The new deal is effective Sept. 1 and runs through 2032. It will include the rights to 40 NCAA championships — 21 women’s and 19 men’s events — as well as exclusive championship coverage of all rounds for women’s basketball, women’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics, softball, baseball and FCS football. It also provides international rights to the 40 championships and the Division I men’s basketball championship.
“Having one, multi-platform home to showcase our championships provides additional growth potential along with a greater experience for the viewer and our student-athletes,” NCAA President Charlie Baker said in a statement.
As the sports media landscape changes, women’s sports have been a bright spot, as they notch record ratings in recent years. ESPN has benefited through its airing of the NCAA women’s basketball tournament and the WNBA playoffs, among other sports.

Endeavor’s IMG and WME Sports, who consulted for the NCAA on the deal, say about 57% of the value of the deal is tied to women’s college basketball specifically, Baker told the Associated Press.
The NCAA said the dramatic increase in the value of the NCAA’s media rights will allow it to explore revenue distribution units for the women’s basketball tournament, a topic the organization began discussing last year.
Last year, complaints of inequality overshadowed the women’s tournament as several players posted on social media that their facilities were significantly worse than the men’s facilities.
“Concurrent with the terms of the new media rights, several enhancements to student-athlete benefits across all three NCAA divisions will take effect, and this deal will help fund those important programs. And the national, integrated platform the family of ESPN networks provides will help grow the visibility of many NCAA sports, particularly for our women student-athletes,” said Linda Livingstone, chair of the NCAA Board of Governors and Baylor University president.
ESPN and the NCAA’s relationship has lasted more than 45 years, since ESPN launched in 1979.
The NBA has the next major professional sports rights up for grabs. The league is in negotiations with a plethora of interested parties as it looks to make its decision before the current deal expires following the 2024-25 season.Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More

Ford Motor reported sales of nearly 2 million vehicles in 2023, a 7.1% increase from the previous year.
But its sales increase is lower than the overall industry’s growth.
Ford’s F-Series continued to top the charts as America’s best-selling vehicle.

2024 Ford F-150 PowerBoost Platinum hybrid

DETROIT – Ford Motor’s U.S. sales increased about 7% last year, marking the automaker’s best sales since 2020 but coming in lower than the overall industry’s growth.
Ford on Thursday reported sales of nearly 2 million vehicles in 2023, a 7.1% increase from the previous year. The company finished third in overall U.S. sales, trailing Toyota Motor and General Motors.

Ford’s overall 2023 sales are lower than the industry’s sales growth, which auto data firm Motor Intelligence reports topped 15.6 million last year — marking a 12.3% increase from 2022 and the segment’s best performance since more than 17 million vehicles in 2019.
“In a year of challenges, from a labor strike to supply issues, our amazing lineup of gas, electric and hybrid vehicles and our fantastic dealers delivered solid growth and momentum. We have the products that customers want,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a release.
Electric vehicle sales came in at 72,608 for the year, up 18% from 2022 and boosted by nearly 26,000 EVs sold during the fourth quarter. Ford said sales of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup — which saw price adjustments earlier this week — were up 74% during the fourth quarter. Sales of the Mustang Mach-E notched the best annual tally since the vehicle launched in 2021, the company said.
Electrified vehicles, including hybrids and EVs, represented only about 10% of Ford’s overall sales in 2023.
Hybrid sales were up 25% during the full year over 2022 and up 55% in the fourth quarter.

For the 47th year in a row, Ford F-Series was America’s best-selling truck and America’s best-selling vehicle for the 42nd year in a row. Sales topped 750,000 units last year, up about 15% compared to the previous year.
Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

Correction: This story has been updated to correct that Ford Motor’s 2023 sales were the automaker’s best since 2020. More

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More