# GroundedKit — Verified Marketing Evidence — full claim data (2026-10-16)

## Influencer marketing returns $5.78 for every $1 spent
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/influencer-marketing-roi-5-78/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2020 (2019 data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Influencer marketing ROI is $5.78 per $1" (as revenue or ROI)
True origin: Influencer Marketing Hub — The State of Influencer Marketing 2020: Benchmark Report (2020 (2019 data))
Source says: Average earned media value per $1 spent has increased to $5.78
Method & sample: Opt-in survey of ~4,000 agencies, brands and industry professionals (45% US; 40% from companies under 10 staff), plus CreatorIQ platform data.
Drift: Metric: earned media value (cost of equivalent ad exposure) quoted as revenue/ROI; Date: 2019 data quoted as current
Interest: Publisher is a media and review site for influencer-marketing platforms.
Safe rephrasing: Respondents to Influencer Marketing Hub's 2020 survey reported an average $5.78 in earned media value — not sales — per $1 spent in 2019.
Sources: Influencer Marketing Hub — Benchmark Report 2020 <https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report-2020/>; Carly — Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026 (secondary trace) <https://www.usecarly.com/blog/influencer-marketing-statistics/>

## Businesses make $6.50 for every $1 spent on influencer marketing
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/influencer-marketing-6-50-per-dollar/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2015
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Influencer marketing delivers $6.50 ROI" (as a current benchmark)
True origin: Tomoson — Influencer Marketing Study (blog post) (2015)
Source says: Tomoson surveyed 125 marketers online from 10–16 March 2015.
Method & sample: Online poll of 125 marketers; self-reported returns; no method given for the average.
Drift: Date: 11-year-old poll quoted as current; Context: top platforms then were blogs (37%) and Facebook (25%); Instagram, YouTube and Twitter 5–6% each; no TikTok
Interest: Tomoson was an influencer marketplace.
Safe rephrasing: In a 2015 poll of 125 marketers by influencer platform Tomoson, respondents self-reported an average $6.50 return per $1.
Sources: Tomoson — Influencer Marketing Study (Internet Archive, 2015) <https://web.archive.org/web/2015/https://blog.tomoson.com/influencer-marketing-study/>

## Email marketing returns $36 for every $1 spent
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/email-marketing-roi-36-to-1/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2020
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Email ROI is 36:1" (as measured and current)
True origin: Litmus — State of Email Survey 2020 (2020)
Source says: These insights are derived from Litmus’ 2020 State of Email Survey of more than 2,000 marketing professionals worldwide.
Method & sample: Survey fielded April 28–June 23, 2020; ROI anonymously self-reported by respondents.
Drift: Method: self-reported survey average, not measured ROI; Date: 2020 data still reused in 2025 materials; the 2025 report gives ranges instead (35% report $10–36, 30% report $36–50)
Interest: Litmus sells email marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: Marketers surveyed by Litmus in 2020 self-reported an average email ROI of about 36:1; in 2025, 35% of marketing leaders reported $10–36 per $1.
Sources: Litmus — The ROI of Email Marketing <https://www.litmus.com/blog/infographic-the-roi-of-email-marketing>; Litmus — 2020 State of Email Survey announcement (field dates) <https://www.litmus.com/blog/take-the-2020-state-of-email-survey-and-help-us-give-back-to-the-community>

## 92% of consumers trust influencers, UGC or word of mouth more than ads
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/92-percent-trust-word-of-mouth-nielsen/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2012 (fieldwork 2011)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "92% of consumers trust influencers (or UGC) over ads" — Nielsen
True origin: Nielsen — Global Trust in Advertising (April 2012) (2012 (fieldwork 2011))
Source says: “recommendations from people I know” scored highest on trust, with 92 percent of consumers trusting this source completely or somewhat.
Method & sample: Online survey of 28,000+ internet respondents in 56 countries.
Drift: Subject: 'people I know' (friends and family) rewritten as influencers or UGC; Metric: 'completely or somewhat' trust rewritten as 'trust more than ads'; Population: global online panel quoted as US consumers; Date: 14 years old
Interest: Nielsen sells advertising measurement.
Safe rephrasing: In Nielsen's 2012 global online survey, 92% said they trust recommendations from people they know completely or somewhat; ads on social networks were trusted by 36%.
Sources: Nielsen: Trust in Advertising, Paid, Owned and Earned (2012) <https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/trust-in-advertising-paid-owned-and-earned/>; MarketingProfs — Earned, Owned Media More Trusted Than Paid (Nielsen 2012 summary) <https://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2012/8943/earned-owned-media-more-trusted-than-paid>; Carly — Influencer Marketing Statistics 2026 (secondary trace) <https://www.usecarly.com/blog/influencer-marketing-statistics/>

## 61% of consumers trust influencer recommendations vs 38% for brands
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/61-percent-trust-influencers-38-brands/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2020
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "61% trust influencers, only 38% trust brands"
True origin: Matter Communications — Matter Survey Reveals Consumers Find Influencers More Helpful and Trustworthy than Brands During the Pandemic (2020)
Source says: 61% are likely to trust recommendations from a friend, family member or influencer on social platforms.
Method & sample: 1,000 US consumers via a third-party panel, May 2020 (COVID-19 lockdown period).
Drift: Subject: influencers were bundled with friends and family in one answer; Date: pandemic-era sample
Interest: Matter is a PR agency that sells influencer programs.
Safe rephrasing: A May 2020 Matter Communications survey of 1,000 US adults found 61% likely to trust recommendations from friends, family or influencers on social, versus 38% from brands.
Sources: Matter Communications — press release, May 26 2020 <https://www.matternow.com/blog/matter-survey-reveals-consumers-find-influencers-more-helpful-and-trustworthy-than-brands-during-the-pandemic/>

## The average person sees 4,000–10,000 ads a day
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/10000-ads-a-day/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2005–2007 (myth); real counts 1968–2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "We see up to 10,000 ads a day"
True origin: None — traced to a 2006 CBS interview quote — No study; disowned by the person credited (2005–2007 (myth); real counts 1968–2014)
Source says: "Our intention was not to endorse any particular number," says Smith ... These numbers are unsubstantiated, and the citations never get more specific than 'experts agree'
Method & sample: Actual counts: Bauer & Greyser 1968, 76 exposures/day (750 people); 2007 replication, 98.5; Media Dynamics 2014, 362 exposures of which 153 noted.
Drift: Number: no study ever measured thousands
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Estimates of daily ad exposure vary widely; counted studies found roughly 76–362 exposures a day, far fewer of them noticed.
Sources: The Drum — How many ads do we really see in a day? (2023) <https://www.thedrum.com/news/how-many-ads-do-we-really-see-day-spoiler-it-s-not-10000>

## Human attention span is 8 seconds, shorter than a goldfish's 9
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/8-second-attention-span-goldfish/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2015
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Microsoft study: attention spans shorter than a goldfish"
True origin: None — Microsoft Canada (2015) cited the website Statistic Brain — No traceable data (2015)
Source says: the figure that everyone picked up on - about our shrinking attention spans - did not actually come from Microsoft's research.
Method & sample: Microsoft surveyed 2,000 Canadians and studied the brain activity of 112 people on other questions; the sources Statistic Brain listed had no record of the research.
Drift: Attribution: Microsoft → Statistic Brain → nothing; Concept: researchers say attention depends on the task, not one average
Interest: The report came from Microsoft's advertising arm.
Safe rephrasing: There is no measured 'average attention span'; attention depends on the task and the content (BBC More or Less, 2017).
Sources: BBC — Busting the attention span myth (2017) <https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790>

## Prospects need 7 touches before they buy (the Rule of 7)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/rule-of-7-marketing/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 1990
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "1930s Hollywood studios found 7 exposures are needed"
True origin: Jeffrey Lant (book, 1990) — rule of thumb, not a study — No study found for the Hollywood story (1990)
Source says: We searched for the Hollywood 'seven posters' research and couldn't find a single source that names the studio, the year or the study.
Method & sample: Measured advertising research points elsewhere: Krugman (1972) argued 3 exposures; Naples (1979) found 2 exposures within a purchase cycle effective (as summarized by the source). Lant’s book itself was not accessible online, so confidence stays medium.
Drift: Lant's rule was about prospects noticing a message within 18 months, not about buying
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: The 'Rule of 7' is a rule of thumb; advertising research on effective frequency has proposed 2–3 exposures, and results vary by brand and channel.
Sources: SalesBlog — Myth: the Rule of 7 (2026) <https://salesblog.co.uk/articles/myth-rule-of-seven/>; Business Insider (2011): Lant’s Rule of Seven, 7 contacts within 18 months <https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-contacts-does-it-take-before-someone-buys-your-product-2011-7>

## Viewers retain 95% of a message in video vs 10% in text
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/video-95-percent-retention/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: late 2000s
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Studies show viewers retain 95% of a video message"
True origin: Insivia (agency) — Why Do Viewers Retain 95% of a Video Message, But Only 10% of Text? (late 2000s)
Source says: It was directional. It was not a peer-reviewed neuroscience study.
Method & sample: The originator describes a small, unpublished survey of ~200 B2B buyers; no data or method published.
Drift: Precision: a directional pattern became a 'scientific' fact
Interest: Insivia sells marketing services, including video.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite 95%/10%. If needed, say video can improve recall for complex topics, and cite peer-reviewed work on dual coding.
Sources: Insivia — origin explanation <https://www.insivia.com/why-does-video-convert-better-than-text/>

## A 5% increase in customer retention increases profits by 25–95%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/5-percent-retention-25-95-percent-profit/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2000
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Bain: +5% retention = +25–95% profit" (any business)
True origin: Reichheld & Schefter, Bain & Company / HBR — E-Loyalty: Your Secret Weapon on the Web (2000)
Source says: By retaining a mere 5% more customers, e-companies can boost profits by 25–95%
Method & sample: Bain analysis of e-business economics, dot-com era (Reichheld & Schefter, HBR July–Aug 2000). The figure is often credited to the earlier 1990 HBR paper 'Zero Defections' (Reichheld & Sasser), but that paper gives a different range, 25–85%, from a handful of service businesses (85% in one bank's branch system, 50% in an insurance brokerage, 30% in an auto-service chain), for a 5-point cut in the defection rate, and its chart measured customer value (net present value of the average customer's profit stream), not company-wide profit.
Drift: Population: e-companies in 2000 → every business today; Attribution: the 25–95% range comes from the 2000 e-loyalty article; the 1990 'Zero Defections' paper often cited for it says 25–85%; Metric: the 1990 figures measured value per customer (NPV of the profit stream), widely re-quoted as total company profit; Date: 26 years old (36 for the 1990 cases)
Interest: Bain sells loyalty consulting (Net Promoter).
Safe rephrasing: Bain's Reichheld estimated in 2000 that retaining 5% more customers could lift e-commerce profits by 25–95%; his 1990 HBR cases (bank, insurance, auto service) showed 25–85% gains in customer value. The effect varies by industry, so model it with your own retention and margin data.
Sources: Bain & Company — E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web (2000) <https://www.bain.com/insights/e-loyalty-your-secret-weapon-on-the-web/>; HBR — Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990) <https://hbr.org/1990/09/zero-defections-quality-comes-to-services>; PubMed — abstract of 'Zero Defections' (HBR 68(5):105–111, 1990) <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10107082>; Coteria — The economics of the returning customer (trace) <https://getcoteria.com/learn/economics-of-the-returning-customer>; HBR — The Value of Keeping the Right Customers (2014) <https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-value-of-keeping-the-right-customers>

## Acquiring a new customer costs 5–25x more than retaining one
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/acquisition-costs-5-25x-retention/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "HBR: acquisition costs 5–25x more than retention"
True origin: None — HBR (2014) cites no specific study — The Value of Keeping the Right Customers (HBR, Amy Gallo) (2014)
Source says: Depending on which study you believe, and what industry you’re in, acquiring a new customer is anywhere from five to 25 times more expensive
Method & sample: None given; a range across unnamed studies.
Drift: Attribution: an HBR blog line quoted as an HBR study
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Acquisition is often more expensive than retention, but the ratio depends on the industry; measure your own CAC against retention cost.
Sources: HBR — The Value of Keeping the Right Customers (2014) <https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-value-of-keeping-the-right-customers>; Coteria — trace <https://getcoteria.com/learn/economics-of-the-returning-customer>

## Content marketing costs 62% less than traditional marketing and generates 3x as many leads
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/content-marketing-62-percent-less-3x-leads/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2013
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Demand Metric study"
True origin: Demand Metric (infographic, not a study) — Infographic: Content Marketing (2013)
Source says: This infographic provides statistics and best practices for content marketing.
Method & sample: No survey, sample or method; per MarketSplash's audit, the infographic's own source list is mostly other statistics roundups. The Demand Metric page itself (opened) shows no survey or method; the downloadable infographic was not opened (download gated), so confidence stays medium.
Drift: Type: an infographic quoted as a study; Date: 13 years old, quoted in the present tense
Interest: Demand Metric sells marketing advisory services.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it. Use a current survey with a stated method (e.g. CMI/MarketingProfs annual B2B research) and name its sample.
Sources: Demand Metric — Infographic: Content Marketing <https://www.demandmetric.com/content/content-marketing-infographic>; MarketSplash — 75 Content Marketing Statistics Re-Verified (audit) <https://marketsplash.com/content-marketing-statistics/>

## Businesses make $2 (or $8) for every $1 spent on Google Ads
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ads-2-dollars-per-dollar/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2009 model, still used
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google Ads returns $2 / $8 per $1" (as measured ROI)
True origin: Google Economic Impact methodology — How we calculate Google’s economic impact (2009 model, still used)
Source says: we assume that for every $1 businesses spend on Google Ads, they generate an average of $2 in profit.
Method & sample: An assumption from Hal Varian (AER 2009, based on observed CPC); the $8 figure adds an assumed 5 organic clicks per ad click, valued at 70%.
Drift: Type: a seller's modelled assumption quoted as advertiser-measured ROI; Scope: the $8 includes free organic clicks
Interest: Google sells the ads.
Safe rephrasing: Google's economic-impact model assumes $2 in profit per $1 of Google Ads, and $8 when organic search clicks are included.
Sources: Google Economic Impact — Methodology <https://economicimpact.google/methodology/>

## B2B buyers are 57% through the purchase decision before talking to sales
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/b2b-buyers-57-percent-before-sales/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2012
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Buyers are 57% (or 70%) done before contacting a vendor" (as current)
True origin: CEB Marketing Leadership Council (with Google) — The Digital Evolution in B2B Marketing (2012)
Source says: the average customer had completed 57% of the purchase decision-making process prior to engaging a supplier sales rep directly.
Method & sample: CEB Marketing Leadership Council Customer Purchase Research Survey, 2011: 1,500+ customer contacts (decision makers and influencers in a recent major purchase) of 22 large B2B suppliers.
Drift: Date: 14 years old, quoted as current
Interest: CEB (now Gartner) sells sales and marketing advisory.
Safe rephrasing: CEB research from 2012 found B2B buyers were on average 57% through the purchase process before engaging a sales rep.
Sources: CEB/Google: The Digital Evolution in B2B Marketing (2012, PDF) <https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/_qs/documents/677/the-digital-evolution-in-b2b-marketing_research-studies.pdf>; Strategy+Design — quoting CEB 2012 <https://strategydesign.co/how-multi-channel-marketing-enables-dialogue-with-sales/>

## US creator economy ad spend reaches $37B in 2025
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/creator-ad-spend-37-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Creator ad spend hits $37B, growing 4x faster than media"
True origin: IAB — 2025 Creator Economy Ad Spend & Strategy Report (2025)
Source says: creator economy ad spend is projected to reach $37 billion in 2025 — a 26% increase year-over-year
Method & sample: Projection of intentional US brand spend on creators (sponsored, amplified, planned adjacencies); excludes affiliate, subscriptions, tips and merch.
Drift: None — but it is a projection; don't mix it with broader 'creator economy' TAM figures
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital ads.
Safe rephrasing: IAB projected US brands would spend $37B on creator advertising in 2025, up 26% year over year.
Sources: IAB — press release, Nov 20 2025 <https://www.iab.com/news/creator-economy-ad-spend-to-reach-37-billion-in-2025-growing-4x-faster-than-total-media-industry-according-to-iab/>

## Color increases brand recognition by 80%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/color-increases-brand-recognition-80/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2001 (leaflet)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "University of Loyola study: color increases brand recognition by up to 80%"
True origin: Xerox marketing leaflet (2001/2005), attributed to Loyola University Maryland researchers — No study containing the figure was found (2001 (leaflet))
Source says: Google couldn't find any paper by dr. Hoadley that had that quote in it.
Method & sample: None. An investigator traced the line to a Xerox leaflet and contacted the named lead researcher; the papers she supplied do not contain the 80% figure.
Drift: Attribution: a printer-maker's sales leaflet quoted as a university study
Interest: Xerox sells color printing.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite a number. If you need evidence on color, cite a named peer-reviewed study and what it measured.
Sources: Insights4Print: the real contents of the 'Loyola study' (2019) <https://www.insights4print.ceo/2019/02/color-increases-brand-recognition-by-80-the-real-contents-of-the-loyola-study-revealed/>

## Every 100ms of latency cost Amazon 1% of sales
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/amazon-100ms-latency-1-percent-sales/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2006 (anecdote about pre-2002 test)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Amazon found every 100ms of latency costs 1% in sales"
True origin: Greg Linden (ex-Amazon) blog post and slides, 2006, about a pre-2002 A/B test — No published data (2006 (anecdote about pre-2002 test))
Source says: In A/B tests, we tried delaying the page in increments of 100 milliseconds and found that even very small delays would result in substantial and costly drops in revenue.
Method & sample: No dataset, sample, test length or significance was published; the '1%' wording comes from a later presentation slide, as traced by the source.
Drift: Precision: 'substantial drops' became an exact 1% per 100ms; Date: 20+ year-old test quoted as current
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: An early-2000s internal Amazon A/B test reportedly found small page delays reduced revenue; no data was published.
Sources: Niels-Ole Kühl: Amazon 100ms = 1% revenue? (2018 trace) <https://niels-ole.com/amazon/performance/2018/10/27/100ms-latency-1percent-revenue.html>

## Users form an opinion about your website in 50 milliseconds (0.05 s)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/website-first-impression-50-milliseconds/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2006
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "You have 0.05 seconds to make a good first impression"
True origin: Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek & Brown (Carleton University) — Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! (Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2)) (2006)
Source says: Study 3 again replicated the 500 ms condition as well as adding a 50 ms condition using the same stimuli
Method & sample: Three lab studies; small student samples (e.g. 22 and 31 participants) rated the visual appeal of web homepages shown for 500 ms and 50 ms.
Drift: Scope: often stretched from 'visual appeal rating' to trust, credibility or whether users stay
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: A 2006 lab study found people's ratings of a homepage's visual appeal after 50 ms were consistent with ratings after longer exposure.
Sources: Lindgaard et al. 2006 (PDF) <https://www.makinggood.ac.nz/media/1265/lindegaardetal_2006_attention.pdf>

## 88% of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/88-percent-trust-online-reviews/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "88% of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations" (as current)
True origin: BrightLocal — Local Consumer Review Survey 2014 (2014)
Source says: 88% of consumers say they trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations (vs. 79% in 2013)
Method & sample: BrightLocal's own consumer panel: 2,104 responses, 90% US and 10% Canada, May-June 2014.
Drift: Date: 12 years old; BrightLocal's later editions report much lower figures (49% in 2026, with changed wording)
Interest: BrightLocal sells local-SEO and review-management software.
Safe rephrasing: In BrightLocal's 2014 panel survey, 88% said they trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations; the same company's recent editions report around half.
Sources: BrightLocal: Local Consumer Review Survey 2014 <https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey-2014/>

## People are 4x more likely to buy when referred by a friend (Nielsen)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/4x-more-likely-to-buy-when-referred-nielsen/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2009 (cited source)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Customers are 4x more likely to buy when referred by a friend" — Nielsen
True origin: None. The Nielsen release usually cited does not contain it — Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey press release (July 2009) (2009 (cited source))
Source says: nine in every ten Internet consumers worldwide (90 percent) trust recommendations from people they know
Method & sample: The cited Nielsen release is an online survey of 25,000+ internet consumers in 50 countries about trust in ad formats; it reports trust, not purchase likelihood, and has no '4x'.
Drift: Attribution: a trust finding rewritten as a purchase multiplier credited to Nielsen
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite '4x'. Nielsen's 2009 global survey found 90% trust recommendations from people they know.
Sources: Nielsen press release, July 2009 (archived PDF) <https://web.archive.org/web/2012id_/http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/newswire/uploads/2009/07/pr_global-study_07709.pdf>

## Personalized emails deliver 6x higher transaction rates
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/personalized-emails-6x-transaction-rates/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014 (2013 data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Personalized emails deliver 6x higher transaction rates" (as current)
True origin: Experian Marketing Services — 2013 Email Market Study (press release, 5 Feb 2014) (2014 (2013 data))
Source says: The study found that personalized emails generate six times higher transaction rates and revenue per email than nonpersonalized email.
Method & sample: Analysis of email campaigns sent by Experian's clients in 2013; sample size not stated in the release.
Drift: Date: 13-year-old campaign data quoted as current
Interest: Experian sold email-marketing services.
Safe rephrasing: Experian's 2013 analysis of its clients' emails found personalized emails had six times the transaction rate of non-personalized ones.
Sources: Experian press release (2014) <https://www.experianplc.com/newsroom/press-releases/2014/experian-marketing-services-study-finds-personalized-emails-generate-six>

## Word of mouth drives 13% of consumer sales ($6 trillion)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/word-of-mouth-13-percent-sales-6-trillion/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Word of mouth drives $6 trillion of annual consumer spending"
True origin: Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), analysis by Analytic Partners — Return on Word of Mouth (press release, 18 Nov 2014) (2014)
Source says: online and offline consumer conversations and recommendations account for 13% of consumer sales, on average, which represents $6 trillion in annual consumer spending.
Method & sample: Econometric modeling of confidential sales data from sponsoring brands in six categories; the $6 trillion extrapolates the 13% average to all US consumer spending.
Drift: Scope: an average across a few sponsor brands extrapolated to the whole economy; Date: 12 years old
Interest: Funded by brand and agency sponsors; WOMMA is a word-of-mouth trade body.
Safe rephrasing: A 2014 WOMMA-sponsored model of six categories estimated word of mouth drove about 13% of sales for participating brands.
Sources: PR Newswire: WOMMA study release (2014) <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/landmark-study-shows-word-of-mouth-drives-13-of-consumer-sales-283040971.html>

## Consumers are 71% more likely to purchase based on social media referrals
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/71-percent-more-likely-social-referrals/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Blog post of Jan. 9, 2012
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "HubSpot: 71% more likely to purchase based on social media referrals"
True origin: HubSpot blog post with a Killer Infographics graphic; no study named in the post text — 71% More Likely to Purchase Based on Social Media Referrals [Infographic] (Mike Ewing, Jan. 9, 2012) (2012)
Source says: The below infographic design from Killer Infographics is a great illustration of the importance of ecommerce inbound marketing.
Method & sample: None found: the archived post's text names no survey, sample or method. The figure sits inside the infographic image, which we could not read from the archive text.
Drift: Date: a 2012 blog infographic still quoted as current; Meaning: '71% more likely' is undefined (more likely than what?); Later restated as '71% of users are more likely to buy based on influencer recommendations'
Interest: HubSpot sells marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it; use a current survey with a stated sample.
Sources: HubSpot blog, Jan. 9, 2012 (Internet Archive copy, Jan. 6, 2014) <https://web.archive.org/web/2013/http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/30239/71-More-Likely-to-Purchase-Based-on-Social-Media-Referrals-INFOGRAPHIC.aspx>; Original HubSpot URL (now redirects to an unrelated article) <https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/30239/71-more-likely-to-purchase-based-on-social-media-referrals-infographic.aspx>

## Millennials trust user-generated content 50% more than other media
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/millennials-trust-ugc-50-percent-more/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Millennials trust UGC 50% more than traditional media" (as current)
True origin: Crowdtap with Ipsos MediaCT — Social Influence: Marketing's New Frontier (as reported by Adweek) (2014)
Source says: A study by Crowdtap and Ipsos Media CT found that this generation is most influenced by user-generated content (UGC).
Method & sample: Online survey of 839 US millennials (18-36), as reported by secondary sources.
Drift: Date: 12 years old; today's 'millennials' are 30-45
Interest: Crowdtap sold UGC and influencer campaigns.
Safe rephrasing: A 2014 survey by UGC firm Crowdtap with Ipsos found millennials rated user-generated content as more trusted than other media.
Sources: Adweek: Millennials Trust UGC 50% More (2014) <https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/millennials-trust-user-generated-content-50-traditional-media-infographic/>

## The brain processes visuals 60,000 times faster than text
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/visuals-processed-60000-times-faster/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2001 (brochure)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "3M research: visuals are processed 60,000x faster than text"
True origin: 3M sales brochure (2001) and a 1998 3M presentation — No study found (2001 (brochure))
Source says: the 2001 3M document you get is not a research summary, not product of their R&D, but a sales brochure
Method & sample: None. Repeated tracing finds only 3M marketing material without data.
Drift: Attribution: a projector-maker's brochure quoted as 3M research
Interest: 3M sold overhead projectors.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it. Images can be understood quickly, but no study supports '60,000 times'.
Sources: CogDogBlog: 60,000 times, truthiness achieved (2014) <https://cogdogblog.com/2014/04/60000-times-truthiness/>

## 80% of sales require 5 follow-ups
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/80-percent-sales-5-follow-ups/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 1942
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of sales require 5 follow-up calls" (National Sales Executive Association)
True origin: Long Island chapter of the National Sales Executives Association (now SMEI) — Member survey (1942)
Source says: 80% of sales are made on the fifth to twelfth contact
Method & sample: A 1942 survey of chapter members; SMEI says the sample was under 40.
Drift: Metric: 'fifth to twelfth contact' became 'five follow-ups'; Date: 84 years old, quoted as current; Sample: under 40 salespeople
Interest: SMEI sells sales training and certification.
Safe rephrasing: A 1942 survey of fewer than 40 sales executives reported most sales closing after several contacts; it is not modern evidence.
Sources: SMEI: Sales Statistics (archive research) <https://smei.org/sales-statistics/>; Automation Experience: the follow-up statistic its author deleted (2026) <https://automationexperience.net/blog/the-follow-up-statistic-its-own-author-deleted/>

## Text messages have a 98% open rate
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/sms-98-percent-open-rate/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2010
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "SMS has a 98% open rate (vs 20% for email)"
True origin: Mobilesquared (for SinglePoint) — Conversational Advertising (white paper) (2010)
Source says: neither datapoints represent an accurate reflection of today's world of mobile messaging.
Method & sample: 2010 white paper; the author firm said in 2022 that its latest data suggests 55% of SMS are read and 100% are viewed. SMS has no standard open tracking.
Drift: Metric: a 'read' estimate quoted as a measured open rate; Date: the publisher itself withdrew it as current
Interest: Commissioned by an SMS-messaging vendor.
Safe rephrasing: Mobilesquared's 2010 estimate of 98% SMS read rates is withdrawn by its author; its 2022 data suggests about 55% are read.
Sources: Mobilesquared: SMS engagement rates dropping (2022) <https://www.mobilesquared.co.uk/2022/08/24/sms-engagement-dropping-still-outperforms-other-channels/>; Mobilesquared: Conversational Advertising (2010, PDF) <https://tnz.com.au/assets/downloads/MobileSQUARED%20-%20Conversational%20Advertising.pdf>

## Only 7% of communication is words (7-38-55 rule)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mehrabian-7-38-55-rule/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 1967
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "93% of communication is nonverbal"
True origin: Albert Mehrabian (UCLA) — Mehrabian & Wiener 1967; Mehrabian & Ferris 1967; Silent Messages (1971/1981) (1967)
Source says: was actually concerned with feelings and attitudes
Method & sample: Small lab studies in which listeners judged a speaker's feelings from single words with inconsistent tone or facial expression.
Drift: Scope: findings about judging feelings from inconsistent cues generalized to all communication
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Mehrabian's 1960s experiments concern how people judge feelings when words and tone conflict; he says the ratios don't apply to communication in general.
Sources: Max Atkinson: Mehrabian's moans about the myth (2009, quoting Mehrabian) <https://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/2009/08/mehrabians-moans-about-myth.html>

## 75% of users never scroll past the first page of search results
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/75-percent-never-scroll-past-page-one/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2010
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "75% of users never scroll past the first page of Google" — HubSpot
True origin: HubSpot slide deck (2010) citing marketshare.hitslink.com — 120 Awesome Marketing Stats, Charts and Graphs (2010)
Source says: That underlying source is a dead link.
Method & sample: None: the cited source is unreachable and no controlled study was found by the auditing source.
Drift: Attribution: a stat-deck line credited to HubSpot research
Interest: HubSpot sells SEO/inbound software.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite 75%. Use a dated click-through study and name its data source.
Sources: SERPs.io: We fact-checked the 10 most-quoted SEO statistics <https://serps.io/blog/seo-zombie-statistics-fact-check>

## 53% of mobile users abandon a site that takes over 3 seconds to load
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/53-percent-mobile-abandon-3-seconds/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2016 (March 2016 data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "53% of mobile visitors leave if a page takes longer than 3 seconds" (as current)
True origin: Google / DoubleClick — The need for mobile speed (2016 (March 2016 data))
Source says: 53% of visits are likely to be abandoned if pages take longer than 3 seconds to load
Method & sample: Aggregated, anonymized Google Analytics data from about 3,700 opted-in mobile sites, March 2016, many on 3G.
Drift: Wording: 'likely to be abandoned' (modeled) quoted as measured; Date: 10-year-old 3G-era data
Interest: Google sells ads and promoted its AMP format at the time.
Safe rephrasing: Google's 2016 analysis of ~3,700 mobile sites estimated 53% of visits are likely abandoned when pages take over 3 seconds.
Sources: Google: The need for mobile speed (2016) <https://blog.google/products/admanager/the-need-for-mobile-speed/>

## 89% of companies compete primarily on customer experience (Gartner)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/89-percent-compete-on-customer-experience/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "89% of businesses compete primarily on customer experience"
True origin: Gartner — Customer experience survey (2014) (2014)
Source says: 89% of companies expect to compete primarily on the basis of customer experience
Method & sample: Gartner survey of marketing leaders; the original is paywalled and was not opened (secondary quote only).
Drift: Tense: an expectation ('expect to compete', for 2016) quoted as fact
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory.
Safe rephrasing: In a 2014 Gartner survey, 89% of companies said they expected to compete mainly on customer experience.
Sources: SERVSIG: Customer experience, two shortcomings (2016, quoting Gartner 2014) <https://www.servsig.org/wordpress/2016/03/customer-experience-two-shortcomings-and-exciting-opportunities/>

## 49% of consumers depend on influencer recommendations
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/49-percent-rely-on-influencer-recommendations/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2016
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "49% of consumers rely on influencer recommendations" (as US consumers today)
True origin: Twitter with Annalect — Twitter influencer study (2016) (2016)
Source says: Almost half of the respondents (49 percent) in the survey rely on influencers for product recommendations. That's just a bit less than the percentage that rely on Tweets from their own friends (56 percent) for recommendations.
Method & sample: Survey of Twitter users, as reported by secondary coverage; 56% relied on friends.
Drift: Population: Twitter users quoted as all consumers; Date: 10 years old
Interest: Twitter sells influencer and ad products.
Safe rephrasing: In a 2016 Twitter/Annalect survey of Twitter users, 49% said they rely on influencers for product recommendations.
Sources: ION: Twitter report on influencers (2016) <https://www.ion.co/twitter-has-released-a-report-showing-consumers-seek-product-recommendations-from-influencers-almost-as-much-as-they-do-from-friends>

## 70% of teens trust YouTubers more than traditional celebrities
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/70-percent-teens-trust-youtubers-over-celebrities/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2015 (Nov 2015 fieldwork)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "70% of teenagers trust influencers more than celebrities"
True origin: Google (Ipsos Connect, Google-commissioned) — The YouTube Generation Study (Think with Google) (2015 (Nov 2015 fieldwork))
Source says: teen YouTube channel subscribers who agreed that YouTube creators are “more like one of us” than traditional celebrities, n=433, Nov. 2015.
Method & sample: US teen YouTube channel subscribers, n=433, Google-commissioned.
Drift: Metric: 'relate to / more like one of us' became 'trust'; Population: teen YouTube subscribers became all teens; Date: 11 years old
Interest: Google owns YouTube.
Safe rephrasing: In a 2015 Google-commissioned survey of 433 US teen YouTube subscribers, 70% said they relate to YouTube creators more than to traditional celebrities.
Sources: Think with Google: YouTube stars' influence (PDF) <https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/_qs/documents/604/youtube-stars-influence-b.pdf>

## 80% of consumers are more likely to buy when brands offer personalized experiences
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/80-percent-buy-personalized-experiences-epsilon/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2018 (2017 survey)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of consumers are more likely to buy from brands that personalize" (as current)
True origin: Epsilon (with GBH Insights) — The power of me: The impact of personalization on marketing performance (press release, 9 Jan 2018) (2018 (2017 survey))
Source says: According to the 2017 online survey of 1,000 consumers ages 18-64, the appeal for personalization is high, with 80% of respondents indicating they are more likely to do business with a company if it offers personalized experiences
Method & sample: 2017 online survey of 1,000 US consumers aged 18-64; stated intent, not observed behavior.
Drift: Metric: stated intent quoted as purchase behavior; Date: 9 years old
Interest: Epsilon sells personalization and data services.
Safe rephrasing: In Epsilon's 2017 survey of 1,000 US consumers, 80% said they're more likely to do business with a company offering personalized experiences.
Sources: Epsilon press release (2018) <https://www.epsilon.com/us/about-us/pressroom/new-epsilon-research-indicates-80-of-consumers-are-more-likely-to-make-a-purchase-when-brands-offer-personalized-experiences>

## People remember 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear…
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/people-remember-10-percent-read-20-percent-hear/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 1967
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Dale's Cone: we remember 10% of what we read, 90% of what we do"
True origin: D. G. Treichler (Mobil Oil employee), Film and Audio-Visual Communications magazine — No research cited (1967)
Source says: D. G. Treichler didn't cite any research
Method & sample: None. Edgar Dale's Cone of Experience contains no percentages; the numbers were later grafted onto it.
Drift: Attribution: numbers from a trade-magazine article credited to Dale or to 'research'
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite these percentages; Dale's cone has no numbers and no research supports them.
Sources: Work-Learning Research: People remember 10%, 20%... Oh really? (2006) <https://www.worklearning.com/2006/05/01/people_remember/>

## Inbound leads cost 61% less than outbound leads
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/inbound-leads-cost-61-percent-less/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2012 (Jan 2012 survey)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Inbound leads cost 61% less than outbound" (as current)
True origin: HubSpot — State of Inbound Marketing (2012; earlier editions 2009-2011) (2012 (Jan 2012 survey))
Source says: the 2009 survey showed that inbound marketing dominated organizations experienced a 61% lower cost per lead
Method & sample: Self-reported surveys of marketers (2011 edition: 644 professionals; 2012 edition: 972, per an audit).
Drift: Date: 14+ years old; Self-reported cost per lead from a vendor's audience
Interest: HubSpot sells inbound-marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: HubSpot's 2009-2012 surveys of marketers reported roughly 60% lower cost per lead for inbound-dominated companies.
Sources: HubSpot: Inbound leads cost 62% less (2011 report post) <https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/10172/inbound-leads-cost-62-less-than-outbound-new-data.aspx>; ProfileTree: inbound statistics audit <https://profiletree.com/inbound-marketing-statistics/>

## Companies that blog get 55% more website visitors
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/companies-that-blog-55-percent-more-visitors/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2009
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Companies that blog get 55% more visitors, 97% more links, 434% more indexed pages"
True origin: HubSpot — Analysis of HubSpot customers' websites (reported Aug 2009) (2009)
Source says: that's the average increase in visitors to small business websites as a result of blogging, according to the study.
Method & sample: Comparison of HubSpot small-business customers with and without blogs (correlation, not an experiment).
Drift: Causality: a correlation among one vendor's customers quoted as an effect; Date: 17 years old
Interest: HubSpot sells blogging software.
Safe rephrasing: A 2009 HubSpot comparison of its small-business customers found those with blogs averaged 55% more visitors.
Sources: Search Engine Watch: HubSpot blogging study (2009) <https://searchenginewatch.com/2009/08/24/blogs-increase-traffic-links-and-indexing-according-to-hubspot-study/>

## Video on a landing page increases conversions by 80%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/video-landing-page-80-percent-conversions/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: c. 2013
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Adding video to a landing page increases conversion by 80%"
True origin: Attributed to an EyeView case study; no data published — No study found (c. 2013)
Source says: Videos do not boost your landing page conversion rates—and in some cases, might even harm them.
Method & sample: No published method for the 80% figure; Unbounce's own analysis of its landing-page data contradicts the blanket claim.
Drift: Scope: one vendor case study turned into a universal rule
Interest: EyeView sold video ads.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite 80%. Unbounce's analysis of its landing-page data found video did not raise conversion rates on average.
Sources: Unbounce: Video on landing pages (analysis) <https://unbounce.com/landing-pages/video-on-landing-pages-means-more-conversions-right-wrong-heres-why/>

## 93% of online experiences begin with a search engine
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/93-percent-online-experiences-begin-search/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2006 (claimed)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "93% of online experiences begin with a search engine"
True origin: Attributed to 'Forrester 2006' or imForza; no report found — No study found (2006 (claimed))
Source says: A study by Forrester from 2006 found that 93% of all internet traffic comes from a search engine.
Method & sample: None. The citation names no report, and the claim mutates between 'experiences' and 'traffic'.
Drift: Meaning shifts between 'experiences begin with' and 'traffic comes from'
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it; use current referral-traffic data with a named source.
Sources: Daniel Bianchini: 10 stats to justify SEO (example of the attribution) <https://danielbianchini.co.uk/10-stats-to-justify-seo/>

## Americans check their phones 96 times a day
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/americans-check-phones-96-times-a-day/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2019
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Americans check their phones 96 times a day" (as current)
True origin: Asurion — Americans Check Their Phones 96 Times a Day (press release) (2019)
Source says: Asurion-sponsored survey by Market Research Firm Solidea Solutions conducted August 18-20, 2019 of 1,998 U.S. smartphone users
Method & sample: Self-reported online survey of 1,998 US smartphone users, Aug 2019, sponsored by a phone-insurance company.
Drift: Measurement: self-report quoted as measured behavior; Date: 7 years old
Interest: Asurion sells phone insurance and tech support.
Safe rephrasing: In a 2019 Asurion-sponsored survey, US smartphone users reported checking their phones about 96 times a day.
Sources: Asurion press release (2019) <https://www.asurion.com/press-releases/americans-check-their-phones-96-times-a-day/>

## About 70% of online shopping carts are abandoned
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cart-abandonment-rate-70-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2026 (rolling)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The average cart abandonment rate is 70%"
True origin: Baymard Institute — Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics (meta-average) (2026 (rolling))
Source says: we've calculated the average cart abandonment rate of 70.22 %. This value is an average calculated based on 50 different studies
Method & sample: Average of 50 published studies of e-commerce cart abandonment; the older 70.19% figure averaged 49 studies.
Drift: Precision: an average of mixed studies quoted to two decimals
Interest: Baymard sells checkout-UX research.
Safe rephrasing: Baymard's average of 50 studies puts online cart abandonment at about 70%.
Sources: Baymard: Cart abandonment rate statistics <https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate>

## The #1 Google result gets 31.7% of clicks
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/first-google-result-31-7-percent-ctr/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2019
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The top organic result gets 31.7% of clicks" (as current)
True origin: Backlinko and ClickFlow — Google CTR study (press release 27 Aug 2019) (2019)
Source says: The #1 result in Google's search results receives 31.7% of all clicks
Method & sample: Analysis of about 5 million Google search results (Search Console data) from 2019.
Drift: Date: measured before Google's AI Overviews changed click patterns
Interest: Backlinko sells SEO training; ClickFlow sells SEO software.
Safe rephrasing: A 2019 Backlinko/ClickFlow study of about 5 million results found the #1 organic result got 31.7% of clicks; newer studies report lower CTRs where AI Overviews appear.
Sources: PR Newswire: Backlinko/ClickFlow CTR study (2019) <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-1-result-in-google-gets-31-7-of-clicks-new-study-by-backlinko-and-clickflow-finds-300907922.html>; SERPs.io: SEO statistics fact-check <https://serps.io/blog/seo-zombie-statistics-fact-check>

## Influencer fraud costs brands $1.3 billion a year
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/influencer-fraud-costs-1-3-billion/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2019
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Fake influencers cost brands $1.3 billion a year" (as measured)
True origin: CHEQ with University of Baltimore economist Roberto Cavazos — The Economic Cost of Bad Actors on the Internet: Fake Influencer Marketing (2019)
Source says: fake influencer marketing will cost advertisers $1.3 billion in 2019
Method & sample: Modeled estimate: an assumed 15% composite fraud rate applied to an estimated $8.5B global influencer spend (Mediakix figure).
Drift: Type: a projection from an assumed rate quoted as a measured loss; Date: 7 years old
Interest: CHEQ sells ad-fraud prevention.
Safe rephrasing: A 2019 CHEQ-commissioned model estimated fake-influencer fraud at $1.3B, assuming 15% of $8.5B spend was lost.
Sources: CHEQ report (2019, PDF) <https://info.cheq.ai/hubfs/Research/THE_ECONOMIC_COST_OF_BAD_ACTORS_Influencers.pdf>

## 80% of B2B leads from social media come from LinkedIn
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/80-percent-b2b-social-leads-linkedin/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of B2B social media leads come from LinkedIn" (as current)
True origin: Oktopost — Analysis of 100,000+ posts (2014) (2014)
Source says: Oktopost found that more than 80% of B2B leads were generated through LinkedIn.
Method & sample: Oktopost analyzed 100,000+ posts by its own B2B customers on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Google+.
Drift: Population: one tool's customers quoted as all B2B; Date: 12 years old (includes Google+)
Interest: Oktopost sells B2B social media software.
Safe rephrasing: In 2014, Oktopost's analysis of its customers' posts attributed over 80% of their social B2B leads to LinkedIn.
Sources: Fronetics: LinkedIn generates more B2B leads (2014) <https://fronetics.com/linkedin-generates-b2b-leads-social-network/>

## Only 3% of your market is ready to buy right now
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/only-3-percent-of-market-buying-now/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2007 (book)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Only 3% of buyers are actively buying" (the Buyer's Pyramid)
True origin: Chet Holmes (The Ultimate Sales Machine) — Show-of-hands polls at live events (2007 (book))
Source says: Chet polled audiences by the thousands during his live events. He asked for a show of hands
Method & sample: Informal show-of-hands polls of seminar audiences; no dates, sample or data published.
Drift: Type: a seminar heuristic quoted as market research
Interest: Chet Holmes International sells sales training.
Safe rephrasing: The '3% buying now' figure is a rule of thumb from informal seminar polls, not a measured market statistic.
Sources: Chet Holmes International: The Art of Attracting New Buyers <https://www.chetholmes.com/attracting-new-buyers/>

## 90% of information transmitted to the brain is visual
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/90-percent-information-to-brain-visual/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 1996
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "90% of information transmitted to the brain is visual"
True origin: Eric Jensen, Brain-Based Learning (book) — No study cited (1996)
Source says: the author simply states the 90% figure and doesn't indicate which study or research it came from.
Method & sample: None.
Drift: Attribution: a book assertion quoted as neuroscience
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it; no study supports a 90% figure.
Sources: Effective Data Storytelling: Six visual myths <https://www.effectivedatastorytelling.com/post/six-visual-myths-that-wont-go-away-but-should>

## Users read only about 20% of the words on a web page
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/users-read-20-percent-of-words/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2008
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People only read 20% of the text on a page"
True origin: Nielsen Norman Group (Jakob Nielsen) — How Little Do Users Read? (2008)
Source says: On the average Web page, users have time to read at most 28% of the words during an average visit; 20% is more likely.
Method & sample: Calculation from page-view logs of a small group of experienced users (Weinreich et al., ACM Transactions on the Web); average page 593 words.
Drift: Date: 2008 desktop-era data; Type: an upper-bound estimate from time on page, not eye-tracking of reading
Interest: NN/g sells UX training.
Safe rephrasing: NN/g estimated in 2008 that users have time to read at most 28% of a page's words, about 20% in practice.
Sources: NN/g: How Little Do Users Read? (2008) <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/>

## A 30-second Super Bowl ad costs about $8 million
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/super-bowl-ad-cost-8-million/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "A Super Bowl spot costs $8 million" (2026)
True origin: NBCUniversal (as reported by Sports Business Journal) — Super Bowl LX ad sales (2026)
Source says: the average 30-second linear spot fetching an $8 million price.
Method & sample: Network-reported average price for Super Bowl LX (Feb 2026); some late spots reportedly sold for more.
Drift: Year-specific: the price changes every year
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: NBCUniversal's average price for a 30-second Super Bowl LX spot (2026) was about $8 million.
Sources: Sports Business Journal (Jan 2026) <https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/01/14/why-advertisers-are-moving-beyond-the-8-million-super-bowl-spot-in-the-streaming-era/>

## Repeat customers spend 67% more than new customers
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/repeat-customers-spend-67-percent-more/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: c. 2000
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Bain: repeat customers spend 67% more than new ones"
True origin: Bain & Company with Mainspring — The Value of Online Customer Loyalty and How You Can Capture It (c. 2000)
Source says: In apparel, the average repeat customer spent 67 percent more in months 31-36 of his or her shopping relationship than in months zero-to-six.
Method & sample: Simulation/analysis of online shoppers in a few categories around 2000.
Drift: Comparison: the same customer over time became 'repeat vs new customers'; Scope: online apparel only; Date: ~26 years old
Interest: Bain sells loyalty consulting.
Safe rephrasing: Bain's ~2000 study found online apparel customers spent 67% more in months 31-36 of the relationship than in their first six months.
Sources: Bain & Company (PDF) <https://media.bain.com/Images/Value_online_customer_loyalty_you_capture.pdf>

## The influencer marketing industry is worth about $32.55 billion (2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/influencer-marketing-industry-32-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Influencer marketing is a $32.55B industry"
True origin: Influencer Marketing Hub — Influencer Marketing Statistics / Benchmark Report (2025)
Source says: The global influencer marketing industry reached an estimated $32.55 billion in 2025
Method & sample: Publisher's own estimate; method for the market size is not detailed on the page.
Drift: Scope: global estimate often quoted as US; Type: a vendor estimate quoted as a census
Interest: Publisher is a media and review site for influencer platforms.
Safe rephrasing: Influencer Marketing Hub estimates the global influencer marketing industry at $32.55B in 2025.
Sources: Influencer Marketing Hub: statistics <https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-statistics/>

## 84% of U.S. adults use YouTube (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-us-adults-youtube-84-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent / share of Americans use YouTube?" / "How many US adults use YouTube?" / "84% of US adults use YouTube"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: The vast majority of U.S. adults (84%) say they ever use YouTube.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — 'ever use' is not the same as daily or monthly active use; about half visit YouTube daily (separate Feb.–March 2025 survey)
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew Research Center's 2025 survey, 84% of U.S. adults said they ever use YouTube, the most of any platform asked about.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>; Pew Research Center — Social Media Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/>

## 71% of U.S. adults use Facebook (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-us-adults-facebook-71-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent / share of Americans use Facebook?" / "How many US adults use Facebook?" / "71% of US adults are on Facebook"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Most Americans (71%) also report using Facebook.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — 'ever use', not daily use; 37% say they visit Facebook several times a day (separate Feb.–March 2025 survey)
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew Research Center's 2025 survey, 71% of U.S. adults said they use Facebook; its share has been roughly stable for years.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>; Pew Research Center — Social Media Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/>

## Half of U.S. adults use Instagram (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-us-adults-instagram-50-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent / share of Americans use Instagram?" / "How many US adults use Instagram?" / "50% of US adults use Instagram"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Half of adults say they use Instagram, making it the only other platform in our survey used by at least 50% of Americans.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — use is much higher among adults under 30 (80%) than 65+ (19%)
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew Research Center's 2025 survey, half of U.S. adults said they use Instagram, up from 40% in 2021.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>; Pew Research Center — Social Media Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/>

## 37% of U.S. adults use TikTok (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-us-adults-tiktok-37-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent / share of Americans use TikTok?" / "How many US adults use TikTok?" / "37% of US adults use TikTok"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: TikTok: 37% of U.S. adults report using the platform, which is slightly up from last year and up from 21% in 2021.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — 'ever use'; 24% of U.S. adults say they are daily TikTok users (separate Feb.–March 2025 survey)
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew Research Center's 2025 survey, 37% of U.S. adults said they use TikTok (63% of adults 18–29), up from 21% in 2021.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>; Pew Research Center — Social Media Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/>

## 26% of U.S. adults use Reddit and 32% use WhatsApp (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-us-adults-reddit-26-whatsapp-32-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent / share of Americans use Reddit or WhatsApp?" / "How many US adults use Reddit?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: About a third say they use WhatsApp, up from 23% in 2021. And 26% today report using Reddit, compared with 18% four years ago.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — Reddit use skews young, male and college-educated (48% of adults 18–29)
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew Research Center's 2025 survey found 26% of U.S. adults use Reddit and about a third (32%) use WhatsApp, both up since 2021.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>; Pew Research Center — Social Media Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/>

## About a quarter (24%) of Americans are daily TikTok users; about half visit Facebook and YouTube every day (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-tiktok-daily-use-24-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Frequency survey fielded Feb. 24–March 2, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Daily TikTok users in the US" / "Half of Americans visit YouTube daily"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: About half of U.S. adults say they visit each of these platforms at least once a day. This includes 37% who visit Facebook several times a day, and 33% who say the same of YouTube. About a quarter (24%) say they are daily users of TikTok. Fewer (10%) report daily use of X.
Method & sample: Separate Pew survey of 5,123 U.S. adults conducted Feb. 24–March 2, 2025.
Drift: None — daily-use shares come from a different survey than the 'ever use' shares
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In a 2025 Pew Research Center survey, about half of U.S. adults said they visit Facebook and YouTube daily, 24% use TikTok daily and 10% use X daily.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>

## About nine in ten U.S. teens use YouTube; about six in ten use TikTok and Instagram (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-teens-youtube-tiktok-instagram-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published Dec. 9, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What social media do teens use?" / "90% of teens use YouTube"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 (Dec. 9, 2025) (2025)
Source says: YouTube stands out for being used by nearly all teens. Roughly nine-in-ten report ever using it. Teens widely use three other platforms: About six-in-ten or more say they use TikTok and Instagram. A somewhat smaller share say they go on Snapchat (55%). Fewer use Facebook (31%) and WhatsApp (24%).
Method & sample: Pew Research Center survey of 1,458 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17.
Drift: None — U.S. teens 13–17 only
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew Research Center's 2025 teen survey found roughly nine in ten U.S. teens (13–17) use YouTube, about six in ten use TikTok and Instagram, 55% Snapchat and 31% Facebook.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/>

## About one in five U.S. teens say they are on TikTok and YouTube 'almost constantly' (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-teens-almost-constantly-tiktok-youtube/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published Dec. 9, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Teens are on social media almost constantly" / "1 in 5 teens on TikTok almost constantly"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 (Dec. 9, 2025) (2025)
Source says: About one-in-five teens say this of TikTok and YouTube. Fewer describe their use of Instagram and Snapchat as almost constant (12% for each). And just 3% say this of Facebook. Across these five platforms, 36% of teens use at least one of these sites almost constantly.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center survey of 1,458 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17; 'almost constantly' is self-reported.
Drift: None — self-reported frequency, U.S. teens 13–17; the TikTok share was 21%, up from 16%
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew Research Center's 2025 survey, about one in five U.S. teens said they use TikTok (21%) and YouTube almost constantly, and 36% said so of at least one of five major platforms.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/>

## 91% of U.S. adults own a smartphone (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-smartphone-ownership-91-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb. 5–June 18, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent of Americans own a smartphone?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Mobile Fact Sheet (2025)
Source says: The vast majority of Americans – 98% – now own a cellphone of some kind. About nine-in-ten (91%) own a smartphone, up from just 35% in the Center's first survey of smartphone ownership conducted in 2011.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew Research Center's 2025 survey found 91% of U.S. adults own a smartphone and 98% own some kind of cellphone.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Mobile Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/>

## 96% of U.S. adults use the internet (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-internet-use-96-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb. 5–June 18, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent of Americans use the internet?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet (2025)
Source says: Today, 96% of U.S. adults say they use the internet.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; address-based sample, web/mail/phone, weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew Research Center's 2025 survey found 96% of U.S. adults say they use the internet.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/>

## 34% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-chatgpt-used-by-34-percent-us-adults/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published June 25, 2025 (newer surveys may show higher use)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What share of Americans use ChatGPT?" / "a third of Americans have used ChatGPT"
True origin: Pew Research Center — 34% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT, about double the share in 2023 (June 25, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Today, 34% of U.S. adults say they have ever used ChatGPT, according to a Pew Research Center survey. That includes a 58% majority of adults under 30.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center American Trends Panel survey of U.S. adults (see the linked methodology).
Drift: None — 'ever used', not weekly or daily use; AI adoption moves fast, so check for a newer Pew figure
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: As of a Pew Research Center survey published in June 2025, 34% of U.S. adults said they had ever used ChatGPT, including 58% of adults under 30.
Sources: Pew Research Center — 34% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/25/34-of-us-adults-have-used-chatgpt-about-double-the-share-in-2023/>

## Google users clicked a result link on 8% of visits with an AI summary vs 15% without (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-ai-summary-clicks-8-vs-15-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Browsing data from March 2025; published July 22, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI Overviews cut clicks in half" / "Pew: people click less when Google shows an AI summary"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results (July 22, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Users who encountered an AI summary clicked on a traditional search result link in 8% of all visits. Those who did not encounter an AI summary clicked on a search result nearly twice as often (15% of visits).
Method & sample: Browsing data from 900 U.S. adults who agreed to share their online activity, March 2025.
Drift: None — observational comparison of visits, not a controlled experiment; links inside the summary were clicked on 1% of visits
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew Research Center's analysis of 900 U.S. adults' browsing in March 2025 found Google users clicked a traditional result on 8% of visits that showed an AI summary, versus 15% of visits without one.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/>

## 38% of U.S. adults regularly get news on Facebook, 35% on YouTube and 20% on TikTok (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-news-on-social-facebook-38-tiktok-20/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Aug. 18–24, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans get news from TikTok?" / "20% of Americans get news on TikTok"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Social Media and News Fact Sheet (2025)
Source says: 38% of U.S. adults say they regularly get news on Facebook, and 35% say the same about YouTube. Smaller shares of Americans regularly get news on Instagram (20%), TikTok (20%) or X, formerly known as Twitter (12%).
Method & sample: Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Aug. 18–24, 2025.
Drift: None — 'regularly get news', self-reported
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In an August 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 38% of U.S. adults said they regularly get news on Facebook, 35% on YouTube, and 20% each on Instagram and TikTok.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Social Media and News Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/>

## E-commerce was 17.1% of U.S. retail sales in Q2 2026 (Census Bureau)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/census-ecommerce-17-1-percent-retail-q2-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q2 2026, seasonally adjusted, preliminary; released Aug. 18, 2026 (check census.gov for the next quarterly release)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What share of US retail is ecommerce?" / "Ecommerce is 20% of retail sales"
True origin: U.S. Census Bureau — Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales, 2nd Quarter 2026 (CB26-133, Aug. 18, 2026) (2026)
Source says: the estimate of U.S. retail e-commerce sales for the second quarter of 2026, adjusted for seasonal variation, but not for price changes, was $340.2 billion ... E-commerce sales in the second quarter of 2026 accounted for 17.1 percent of total sales.
Method & sample: Monthly Retail Trade Survey: probability sample of about 10,800 retail firms (excluding food services) weighted to the universe of 2M+ retail firms; employer businesses only.
Drift: None — check the quarter: the share is seasonally adjusted (not adjusted Q4 2025 was 18.3%); the Census page notes revisions published after Sept. 28, 2026
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: The U.S. Census Bureau estimated e-commerce at $340.2 billion, or 17.1% of total retail sales, in Q2 2026 (seasonally adjusted, preliminary).
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau — Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales report (PDF) <https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf>; U.S. Census Bureau — Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales page <https://www.census.gov/retail/ecommerce.html>

## U.S. digital (internet) ad revenue was $294.6B in 2025, up 13.9% (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-us-digital-ad-revenue-294-6-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full-year 2025; published April 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How big is US digital advertising?" / "US digital ad spend hit nearly $300 billion"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026 (2025 data))
Source says: U.S. digital advertising revenues, which rose 13.9% year over year (YoY) in 2025 to a record $294.6 billion.
Method & sample: Compiled by PwC from revenue data reported directly by companies selling internet advertising plus public corporate data; PwC does not audit the figures. U.S. only.
Drift: None — revenue reported by sellers, not audited; U.S. only
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital advertising.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC's report put U.S. internet advertising revenue at a record $294.6 billion in 2025, up 13.9% from 2024.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 (PDF) <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>; IAB — report page <https://www.iab.com/insights/internet-advertising-revenue-report-full-year-2025/>

## U.S. social media ad revenue was $117.7B in 2025, and search was $114.2B (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-social-ad-revenue-117-7-billion-search-114-2-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full-year 2025; published April 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much is spent on social media advertising in the US?" / "Social ads overtook search"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026 (2025 data))
Source says: Social media advertising revenues reached $117.7 billion in 2025, increasing $29.0 billion year over year (32.6%) ... Search revenues grew by $11.4 billion to $114.2 billion in 2025
Method & sample: Compiled by PwC from revenue data reported directly by companies selling internet advertising plus public corporate data; PwC does not audit the figures. U.S. only.
Drift: Comparison: 'social' is a platform category and 'search' an ad format in the report, so they can overlap; treat 'social overtook search' as approximate
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital advertising.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC reported U.S. social media ad revenue of $117.7 billion (+32.6%) and search ad revenue of $114.2 billion (+11.0%) in 2025.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 (PDF) <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>; IAB — report page <https://www.iab.com/insights/internet-advertising-revenue-report-full-year-2025/>

## U.S. podcast ad revenue was $2.9B in 2025, up 17.6% (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-podcast-ad-revenue-2-9-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full-year 2025; published April 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How big is podcast advertising?"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026 (2025 data))
Source says: Podcast advertising revenues grew 17.6% YoY, to a total revenue of $2.9 billion.
Method & sample: Compiled by PwC from revenue data reported directly by companies selling internet advertising plus public corporate data; PwC does not audit the figures. U.S. only.
Drift: None — the report uses the traditional audio-based podcast definition; video podcasts may be counted elsewhere
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital advertising.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC reported U.S. podcast advertising revenue of $2.9 billion in 2025, up 17.6% year over year (audio-based definition).
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 (PDF) <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>; IAB — report page <https://www.iab.com/insights/internet-advertising-revenue-report-full-year-2025/>

## The FTC's maximum civil penalty is $53,088 per violation, unchanged for 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-civil-penalty-53088-per-violation-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Amount applies to penalties assessed after Jan. 17, 2025; FTC said on Sept. 15, 2026 it will keep 2025 levels for 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "FTC fines can be up to $53,088 per violation" / "What is the FTC penalty per violation?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — 16 CFR 1.98 (Adjustment of civil monetary penalty amounts) and Federal Register notice 2026-18853 (Sept. 15, 2026) (2025 (amount); 2026 (no-change notice))
Source says: Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A)—$53,088 ... the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")'s civil penalty amounts will remain unchanged during 2026. The FTC will continue to apply the 2025 civil penalty levels.
Method & sample: Regulation text (eCFR) and the FTC's Federal Register notice; the 2026 inflation adjustment was cancelled because October 2025 CPI-U data was not produced.
Drift: Date: older articles quote earlier, lower inflation-adjusted maximums; it is a per-violation maximum, not a typical fine
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: Violations of FTC rules or orders can carry civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation; the FTC kept that 2025 maximum in place for 2026.
Sources: eCFR — 16 CFR 1.98 <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-L/section-1.98>; Federal Register (govinfo) — FTC Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments, Sept. 15, 2026 <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-15/html/2026-18853.htm>

## Each email that violates CAN-SPAM can cost up to $53,088 in penalties
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/can-spam-penalty-53088-per-email/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Guide page shows $53,088; FTC kept 2025 penalty levels for 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "CAN-SPAM fines per email" / "What is the penalty for violating CAN-SPAM?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (2023 (guide); amount current for 2026)
Source says: Each separate email in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act is subject to penalties of up to $53,088, so non-compliance can be costly.
Method & sample: FTC business guidance; amount matches 16 CFR 1.98.
Drift: Date: older posts quote earlier, lower inflation-adjusted amounts
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: Under the FTC's CAN-SPAM guidance, each separate non-compliant commercial email can draw penalties of up to $53,088.
Sources: FTC — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business>; eCFR — 16 CFR 1.98 <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-L/section-1.98>

## CAN-SPAM applies to B2B email too, not only bulk email to consumers
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/can-spam-applies-to-b2b-email/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: FTC guide (Aug. 2023, edited Jan. 2024)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "CAN-SPAM doesn't apply to B2B email" (false)
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (2023)
Source says: Despite its name, the CAN-SPAM Act doesn't apply just to bulk email. It covers all commercial messages ... The law makes no exception for business-to-business email.
Method & sample: FTC business guidance.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC says CAN-SPAM covers all commercial email, including business-to-business messages.
Sources: FTC — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business>

## Under CAN-SPAM you must honor an opt-out within 10 business days
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/can-spam-opt-out-10-business-days/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: FTC guide (Aug. 2023, edited Jan. 2024)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How fast must I process unsubscribes?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (2023)
Source says: Any opt-out mechanism you offer must be able to process opt-out requests for at least 30 days after you send your message. You must honor a recipient's opt-out request within 10 business days.
Method & sample: FTC business guidance.
Drift: None — other rules (e.g. mailbox-provider bulk-sender requirements) may demand faster processing
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC's CAN-SPAM guide says opt-outs must work for at least 30 days after sending and must be honored within 10 business days.
Sources: FTC — CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business>

## An influencer disclosure only in the bio or profile page is not enough for the FTC
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-disclosure-in-bio-not-enough/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Endorsement Guides as revised July 26, 2023 (88 FR 48102)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Putting #ad / 'partner' in your bio covers all your posts" (false)
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255, revised July 26, 2023); Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (2023)
Source says: An influencer who is paid to endorse a vitamin product in their social media posts discloses their connection to the product's manufacturer only on the profile pages of their social media accounts. The disclosure is not clear and conspicuous because people seeing their paid posts could easily miss the disclosure.
Method & sample: Regulatory guidance (16 CFR 255.5 example) plus FTC staff brochure.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC's Endorsement Guides say a paid influencer who discloses only on a profile page has not made a clear and conspicuous disclosure; put it in the post itself.
Sources: eCFR — 16 CFR Part 255 (Endorsement Guides) <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255>; FTC — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers>

## Free or discounted products count as a 'material connection' that influencers must disclose
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-free-products-are-material-connection/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: FTC staff brochure (Nov. 2019), consistent with the 2023 Endorsement Guides
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "You only need to disclose if you were paid" (false)
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (Nov. 2019) (2019)
Source says: A "material connection" to the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or a financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you free or discounted products or services. ... make a disclosure even if you weren't asked to mention that product.
Method & sample: FTC staff guidance brochure.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: FTC guidance says free or discounted products, payment, employment and family ties are all material connections an influencer should disclose.
Sources: FTC — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers>

## The FTC says 'sp', 'spon' and 'collab' are not clear disclosures; '#ad', 'ad' or 'sponsored' are
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-sp-spon-collab-not-clear-disclosures/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: FTC staff brochure (Nov. 2019)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "#sp or #collab is enough to disclose a paid post" (false)
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (Nov. 2019) (2019)
Source says: So are terms like "advertisement," "ad," and "sponsored." ... Don't use vague or confusing terms like "sp," "spon," or "collab," or stand-alone terms like "thanks" or "ambassador,"
Method & sample: FTC staff guidance brochure.
Drift: None — also: don't bury the disclosure in a group of hashtags or behind 'more'
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: FTC staff guidance says to use clear words like 'ad', 'advertisement' or 'sponsored' with the post, and to avoid vague tags such as 'sp', 'spon' or 'collab'.
Sources: FTC — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers>

## Relying only on a platform's built-in 'paid partnership' tool may not satisfy the FTC
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-platform-paid-partnership-tool-may-not-be-enough/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Endorsement Guides as revised July 26, 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "If I use Instagram's paid partnership label I'm compliant"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — 16 CFR Part 255 (Endorsement Guides, 2023); Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (2023)
Source says: Assume now that the influencer relies solely upon a social media platform's built-in disclosure tool for one of these posts. The disclosure appears in small white text ... The disclosure is easy to miss and thus not clear and conspicuous.
Method & sample: Regulatory guidance example plus FTC staff brochure ("Don't assume that a platform's disclosure tool is good enough").
Drift: Nuance: the tool is not banned; the test is whether the disclosure is clear and conspicuous in context
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC says a platform's disclosure tool alone may be too easy to miss; use it together with your own clear disclosure in the post.
Sources: eCFR — 16 CFR Part 255 <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255>; FTC — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers <https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers>

## The FTC's rule banning fake reviews and fake social-media influence indicators took effect Oct. 21, 2024
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-consumer-reviews-rule-16-cfr-465/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: In force since Oct. 21, 2024 (eCFR timeline)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Is buying fake reviews or followers illegal in the US?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (16 CFR Part 465; 89 FR 68077, Aug. 22, 2024) (2024)
Source says: § 465.2 Fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials, or celebrity testimonials. ... § 465.4 Buying positive or negative consumer reviews. § 465.5 Insider consumer reviews and consumer testimonials. ... § 465.7 Review suppression. § 465.8 Misuse of fake indicators of social media influence.
Method & sample: Regulation text (eCFR).
Drift: None — violations of a trade regulation rule can bring civil penalties (see the FTC civil penalty entry)
Interest: n/a (federal regulator).
Safe rephrasing: Since Oct. 21, 2024, the FTC's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule (16 CFR Part 465) prohibits fake reviews and testimonials, buying reviews, review suppression and misuse of fake social-media influence indicators.
Sources: eCFR — 16 CFR Part 465 <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-465>

## 58% of Americans 12+ consumed a podcast in the last month (Edison Infinite Dial 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-podcast-monthly-58-percent-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published March 12, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans listen to podcasts?"
True origin: Edison Research at SSRS (with SiriusXM Media) — The Infinite Dial 2026 (March 12, 2026) (2026)
Source says: 58% of Americans age 12+ (167 million) have consumed a podcast in the last month, also an all-time high ... 45% of Americans age 12+ (130 million) have consumed a podcast in the last week
Method & sample: National survey of Americans 12+ by Edison Research at SSRS (sample and fieldwork in the downloadable report).
Drift: None — 'consumed' includes listening to or watching a podcast
Interest: Edison Research sells audio research; the study is supported by SiriusXM Media, which sells audio ads.
Safe rephrasing: Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 estimates that 58% of Americans 12+ (about 167 million) consumed a podcast in the past month and 45% in the past week.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## 81% of Americans 12+ listened to online audio in the last month (Edison Infinite Dial 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-online-audio-81-percent-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published March 12, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans listen to streaming audio?"
True origin: Edison Research at SSRS (with SiriusXM Media) — The Infinite Dial 2026 (March 12, 2026) (2026)
Source says: 81% of Americans age 12+ (233 million) listened to online audio in the last month, and 76% (219 million) listened in the last week
Method & sample: National survey of Americans 12+ by Edison Research at SSRS (see the report).
Drift: None
Interest: Edison Research sells audio research; supported by SiriusXM Media.
Safe rephrasing: Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 estimates 81% of Americans 12+ listened to online audio in the past month.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## Meta's apps had 3.60 billion daily active people on average in June 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/meta-family-daily-active-people-3-60-billion/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Average for June 2026 (Q2 2026 results)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Meta apps every day?" / "3 billion+ people use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp daily"
True origin: Meta Platforms — Meta Reports Second Quarter 2026 Results (press release) (2026)
Source says: Family daily active people (DAP) – DAP was 3.60 billion on average for June 2026, an increase of 3% year-over-year.
Method & sample: Company-reported metric: unique people using at least one of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger or WhatsApp; global, not audited as a user count.
Drift: Scope: global, all Meta apps combined — not Facebook alone and not U.S. users
Interest: Self-reported by Meta, which sells ads on these apps.
Safe rephrasing: Meta reported an average of 3.60 billion daily active people across its apps (global, combined) in June 2026.
Sources: Meta Q2 2026 results (PR Newswire) <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/meta-reports-second-quarter-2026-results-302838214.html>

## Google handles more than 5 trillion searches a year (Google, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-5-trillion-searches-per-year/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Google internal data, January 2025 (first published March 2025)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many searches does Google get?" / "Google processes 5 trillion searches a year"
True origin: Google — Debbie Weinstein's remarks at OMR Germany (Google blog, May 6, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Every year, we see over 5 trillion searches on Google.
Method & sample: Company statement from internal data; no public methodology.
Drift: None — global, all devices; self-reported by Google
Interest: Self-reported by Google, which sells search ads.
Safe rephrasing: Google says it sees more than 5 trillion searches a year (internal data, January 2025), roughly 13.7 billion a day on average.
Sources: Google blog — Debbie Weinstein's remarks at OMR Germany <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/around-the-globe/google-europe/debbie-weinsteins-remarks-at-omr-germany/>

## 15% of Google searches every day have never been searched before
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-15-percent-searches-new-every-day/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Google statement, May 2025 (Google has repeated the 15% figure for years)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "15% of Google searches are brand new"
True origin: Google — Debbie Weinstein's remarks at OMR Germany (Google blog, May 6, 2025) (2025)
Source says: And, every day, 15% of those searches are brand new; they've literally never been asked before.
Method & sample: Company statement; no public methodology.
Drift: None
Interest: Self-reported by Google.
Safe rephrasing: Google says about 15% of the searches it sees each day have never been searched before.
Sources: Google blog — Debbie Weinstein's remarks at OMR Germany <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/around-the-globe/google-europe/debbie-weinsteins-remarks-at-omr-germany/>

## Marketing budgets average 7.8% of company revenue in 2026 (Gartner CMO Spend Survey)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-marketing-budget-7-8-percent-revenue-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Jan.–March 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent of revenue should go to marketing?" / "Marketing budgets are 7.7% of revenue"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner 2026 CMO Spend Survey (press release, May 11, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Marketing budgets remain effectively flat, rising only slightly to 7.8% of company revenue in 2026 from 7.7% in 2025.
Method & sample: Survey of 401 CMOs and marketing leaders in North America, the UK and Europe, Jan.–March 2026; the vast majority from companies with over $1 billion in revenue.
Drift: Population: mostly $1B+ companies, so not a benchmark for small businesses
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory services to marketing leaders.
Safe rephrasing: Gartner's 2026 CMO Spend Survey (401 leaders, mostly at $1B+ companies) found marketing budgets averaged 7.8% of company revenue, up from 7.7% in 2025.
Sources: Gartner — 2026 CMO Spend Survey press release <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-05-11-gartner-2026-cmo-spend-survey-finds-cmos-allocate-15-point-3-percent-of-marketing-budgets-to-ai-but-only-30-percent-are-ready-to-scale-ai-capabilities>

## CMOs allocate 15.3% of marketing budgets to AI (Gartner, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-cmos-15-3-percent-budget-to-ai-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Jan.–March 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much of the marketing budget goes to AI?"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner 2026 CMO Spend Survey (press release, May 11, 2026) (2026)
Source says: CMOs are allocating an average of 15.3% of marketing budgets to AI initiatives ... only 30% report mature or fully developed AI readiness capabilities.
Method & sample: Survey of 401 CMOs and marketing leaders in North America, the UK and Europe; mostly $1B+ revenue companies.
Drift: Population: large companies; 'AI initiatives' is as defined by respondents
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory services to marketing leaders.
Safe rephrasing: Gartner's 2026 CMO Spend Survey found CMOs (mostly at $1B+ companies) allocate an average 15.3% of marketing budgets to AI initiatives.
Sources: Gartner — 2026 CMO Spend Survey press release <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-05-11-gartner-2026-cmo-spend-survey-finds-cmos-allocate-15-point-3-percent-of-marketing-budgets-to-ai-but-only-30-percent-are-ready-to-scale-ai-capabilities>

## 58.5% of U.S. Google searches end without a click
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/zero-click-searches-58-5-percent/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2024 clickstream data, before AI Overviews were widely rolled out
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Nearly 60% of Google searches are zero-click" (SparkToro)
True origin: SparkToro (data from Datos, a Semrush company) — 2024 Zero-Click Search Study (July 1, 2024) (2024)
Source says: In 2024, 59.7% of European Union Google searches and 58.5% of American Google searches resulted in zero clicks.
Method & sample: Datos clickstream panel (multi-million devices) in the US and EU; SparkToro notes panel-representativeness and ad-blocker caveats.
Drift: Date: 2024 data quoted as current; SparkToro's own page now warns it 'may be out of date' and points to a newer post; Definition: zero-click includes searches that end with a refined query, not only 'answered on the SERP'
Interest: SparkToro sells audience research software built partly on Datos data.
Safe rephrasing: SparkToro's 2024 study of Datos clickstream data found 58.5% of U.S. Google searches ended without a click; AI Overviews have changed search since then.
Sources: SparkToro — 2024 Zero-Click Search Study <https://sparktoro.com/blog/2024-zero-click-search-study-for-every-1000-us-google-searches-only-374-clicks-go-to-the-open-web-in-the-eu-its-360/>

## Search engine volume has dropped 25% because of AI chatbots (Gartner)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-search-volume-drop-25-percent-2026/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Prediction made Feb. 2024 for 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Gartner: search traffic will fall / has fallen 25% by 2026"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner Predicts Search Engine Volume Will Drop 25% by 2026, Due to AI Chatbots and Other Virtual Agents (Feb. 19, 2024) (2024 (prediction))
Source says: By 2026, traditional search engine volume will drop 25%, with search marketing losing market share to AI chatbots and other virtual agents, according to Gartner, Inc.
Method & sample: Analyst prediction from 'Predicts 2024: How GenAI Will Reshape Tech Marketing'; no measured data or method published.
Drift: Type: a 2024 prediction quoted as a measured result; Scope: aimed at tech marketers' search channels
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory services.
Safe rephrasing: In February 2024 Gartner predicted traditional search engine volume would drop 25% by 2026; that was a forecast, not a measurement. Google itself reported more than 5 trillion searches a year in 2025.
Sources: Gartner press release, Feb. 19, 2024 <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-02-19-gartner-predicts-search-engine-volume-will-drop-25-percent-by-2026-due-to-ai-chatbots-and-other-virtual-agents>

## 71% of consumers expect personalization and 76% get frustrated without it (McKinsey)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-71-percent-expect-personalization/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2021 survey during the pandemic
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "71% of consumers expect personalized interactions"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — The value of getting personalization right—or wrong—is multiplying (Next in Personalization 2021 Report, Nov. 12, 2021) (2021)
Source says: Seventy-one percent of consumers expect companies to deliver personalized interactions. And seventy-six percent get frustrated when this doesn't happen.
Method & sample: McKinsey consumer survey (sample and country details not given in the article).
Drift: Date: 2021, pandemic-era survey quoted as current; Method: sample size and population not stated in the public article
Interest: McKinsey sells personalization and growth consulting.
Safe rephrasing: In McKinsey's 2021 Next in Personalization report, 71% of consumers said they expect personalized interactions and 76% said they get frustrated without them.
Sources: McKinsey — The value of getting personalization right—or wrong—is multiplying <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-value-of-getting-personalization-right-or-wrong-is-multiplying>

## Personalization drives a 10–15% revenue lift (McKinsey)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-personalization-10-15-percent-revenue-lift/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2021
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Personalization increases revenue by 10-15%"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — The value of getting personalization right—or wrong—is multiplying (Nov. 12, 2021) (2021)
Source says: Research shows that personalization most often drives 10 to 15 percent revenue lift (with company-specific lift spanning 5 to 25 percent, driven by sector and ability to execute).
Method & sample: Not disclosed in the article ('research shows'); appears to draw on McKinsey client experience.
Drift: Method: no study, sample or definition of 'lift' is given; Date: 2021
Interest: McKinsey sells personalization consulting.
Safe rephrasing: McKinsey wrote in 2021 that personalization 'most often' drives a 10–15% revenue lift (5–25% by company), without publishing the underlying data.
Sources: McKinsey — The value of getting personalization right—or wrong—is multiplying <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-value-of-getting-personalization-right-or-wrong-is-multiplying>

## The creator economy is worth $480 billion
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/creator-economy-480-billion-goldman/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Forecast published April 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The creator economy is a $480B industry" (Goldman Sachs)
True origin: Goldman Sachs Research — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 (Apr. 19, 2023) (2023 (forecast for 2027))
Source says: the total addressable market of the creator economy could roughly double in size over the next five years to $480 billion by 2027 from $250 billion today
Method & sample: Analyst estimate of total addressable market (global), not measured spend.
Drift: Type: a 2027 forecast quoted as today's size; Metric: total addressable market, not revenue or ad spend; Scope: global, not U.S.
Interest: Goldman Sachs is an investment bank covering the companies involved.
Safe rephrasing: Goldman Sachs Research estimated in 2023 that the global creator economy's total addressable market could reach about $480 billion by 2027, up from $250 billion.
Sources: Goldman Sachs — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 <https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-creator-economy-could-approach-half-a-trillion-dollars-by-2027>

## There are 50 million creators worldwide
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/50-million-creators-worldwide/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Repeated by Goldman Sachs Research in April 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "50 million people consider themselves creators"
True origin: None found — repeated by Goldman Sachs Research (2023) without a method — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 (2023 (repeated figure))
Source says: Goldman Sachs Research expects the 50 million global creators to grow at a 10-20% compound annual growth rate during the next five years.
Method & sample: None given; Goldman states the 50 million as a starting point without a count, survey or definition of 'creator'.
Drift: Attribution: a round number repeated by a bank note, with no underlying count we could find; Definition: 'creator' is undefined
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Estimates of the number of creators vary widely and depend on the definition; the often-quoted '50 million' has no published count behind it.
Sources: Goldman Sachs — creator economy note (repeats the figure) <https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-creator-economy-could-approach-half-a-trillion-dollars-by-2027>

## AI Overviews reduce clicks to the top result by 34.5% (Ahrefs)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks-34-5-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Analysis published April 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI Overviews cut CTR by a third"
True origin: Ahrefs — AI Overviews Reduce Clicks by 34.5% (Apr. 17, 2025) (2025)
Source says: We analyzed 300,000 keywords and found that the presence of an AI Overview in the search results correlated with a 34.5% lower average clickthrough rate (CTR) for the top-ranking page, compared to similar informational keywords without an AI Overview.
Method & sample: Ahrefs analysis of 300,000 informational keywords, comparing top-result CTR with and without an AI Overview.
Drift: Causality: a correlation for the top-ranking page on informational keywords, not all clicks or all queries
Interest: Ahrefs sells SEO software.
Safe rephrasing: Ahrefs' April 2025 analysis of 300,000 informational keywords found top-ranking pages had a 34.5% lower average CTR when an AI Overview appeared.
Sources: Ahrefs — AI Overviews Reduce Clicks by 34.5% <https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/>

## 96.55% of web pages get no traffic from Google (Ahrefs)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/96-percent-pages-no-google-traffic/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Ahrefs index as of late 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Over 90% of content gets no traffic from Google"
True origin: Ahrefs — 96.55% of Content Gets No Traffic From Google (Dec. 1, 2023) (2023)
Source says: 96.55% of all pages in our index get zero traffic from Google, and 1.94% get between one and ten monthly visits.
Method & sample: All ~14 billion pages in Ahrefs' Content Explorer index; traffic is Ahrefs' estimate, not Google data.
Drift: Population: pages in Ahrefs' index, not 'all content'; traffic is modeled
Interest: Ahrefs sells SEO software.
Safe rephrasing: Ahrefs' 2023 study estimated 96.55% of the ~14 billion pages in its index get no organic traffic from Google.
Sources: Ahrefs — 96.55% of Content Gets No Traffic From Google <https://ahrefs.com/blog/search-traffic-study/>

## A 0.1-second faster mobile site lifts retail conversions 8.4% (Deloitte)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/0-1-second-faster-8-4-percent-more-conversions/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published March 2020
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "A 0.1s improvement in site speed boosts sales by 8%"
True origin: Deloitte (commissioned by Google) — Milliseconds Make Millions (Mar. 24, 2020) (2020 (2019 data))
Source says: Based on a 0.1s natural mobile site speed improvement, we observed ... Retail conversions increased by 8.4% and average order value increased by 9.2%.
Method & sample: Observational study of brands' mobile sites across Europe and the US; 'natural' speed changes, not controlled experiments.
Drift: Metric: conversions quoted as 'sales'; Causality: correlation in observed data; Date: 2019–2020 mobile web
Interest: The study was commissioned by Google, which promotes faster mobile sites.
Safe rephrasing: A 2020 Deloitte study commissioned by Google observed that a 0.1-second mobile speed improvement was associated with 8.4% more retail conversions.
Sources: Deloitte — Milliseconds Make Millions <https://www.deloitte.com/ie/en/services/consulting/research/milliseconds-make-millions.html>

## A site that loads in 1 second converts 3x better than one that loads in 5 seconds (Portent)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/1-second-site-3x-conversion-rate-portent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Updated April 20, 2022
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "1-second load time = 3x conversions"
True origin: Portent — Site Speed is (Still) Impacting Your Conversion Rate (Apr. 20, 2022) (2022)
Source says: A site that loads in 1 second has a conversion rate 3x higher than a site that loads in 5 seconds. ... A site that loads in 1 second has an e-commerce conversion rate 2.5x higher than a site that loads in 5 seconds.
Method & sample: About 100 million page views across 20 B2B and B2C sites (27,000+ landing pages); correlational.
Drift: Metric: 3x is for lead/goal conversions; e-commerce was 2.5x; Sample: 20 sites, correlational
Interest: Portent is a digital agency selling site-performance services.
Safe rephrasing: Portent's 2022 analysis of 20 sites found pages loading in 1 second had about 3x the goal-conversion rate (2.5x for e-commerce) of pages loading in 5 seconds.
Sources: Portent — Site Speed is (Still) Impacting Your Conversion Rate <https://www.portent.com/blog/analytics/research-site-speed-hurting-everyones-revenue.htm>

## Only 5% of B2B buyers are in-market at any time; 95% are not (the 95-5 rule)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/95-5-rule-b2b-buyers-out-of-market/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Page retrieved 2026-10-16; publication date not shown
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "95% of B2B buyers aren't ready to buy"
True origin: LinkedIn B2B Institute with the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute — The 95-5 Rule (Undated page (B2B Institute))
Source says: The 95-5 rule, which shows that 95% of your potential buyers aren't ready to buy today. These 95% are "out-market" today, but will be "in-market" sometime in the future.
Method & sample: A rule of thumb derived from typical B2B purchase frequencies (e.g. companies changing banking services about once every 5 years), not a survey of buyers.
Drift: Precision: an approximation from purchase cycles, not a measured share; it varies by category
Interest: LinkedIn sells B2B advertising, and the rule supports long-term brand advertising.
Safe rephrasing: The LinkedIn B2B Institute and Ehrenberg-Bass estimate that roughly 95% of B2B buyers are out of the market at any time, based on how rarely firms switch suppliers.
Sources: LinkedIn B2B Institute — The 95-5 Rule <https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-solutions/b2b-institute/b2b-research/trends/95-5-rule>

## The median landing page conversion rate is 6.6% (Unbounce)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/landing-page-median-conversion-6-6-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2024 report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Average landing page conversion rate is 6.6%"
True origin: Unbounce — Conversion Benchmark Report 2024 (2024)
Source says: The median conversion rate across all industries is 6.6%. We've highlighted the median conversion rates across nine different industries, which range from 3.8% to 12.3%
Method & sample: Unbounce data from landing pages on its platform (the site cites over 57 million landing page conversions).
Drift: Metric: a median, not an average; Population: Unbounce-hosted landing pages, not websites in general
Interest: Unbounce sells landing-page software.
Safe rephrasing: Unbounce's 2024 benchmark put the median landing-page conversion rate on its platform at 6.6%, ranging from 3.8% to 12.3% by industry.
Sources: Unbounce — Conversion Benchmark Report <https://unbounce.com/conversion-benchmark-report/>

## The average email open rate is 35.63% (Mailchimp)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mailchimp-average-email-open-rate-35-63/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Data last updated December 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The average email open rate is about 21% / 35%"
True origin: Mailchimp — Email Marketing Benchmarks and Statistics by Industry (2023 (data as of December 2023))
Source says: All Users 35.63% 2.62% 0.22% ... The data provided on this page was last updated in December 2023 ... The accuracy of email open rates may be impacted by Apple's privacy changes and their Mail Privacy Protection (MPP) feature
Method & sample: Mailchimp campaigns sent to at least 1,000 subscribers, across its customer base.
Drift: Date: December 2023 data; Metric: opens inflated by Apple Mail Privacy Protection; older lower figures predate MPP and aren't comparable
Interest: Mailchimp sells email marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: Mailchimp's benchmarks (December 2023 data) show a 35.63% average open rate and 2.62% click rate across users; open rates are inflated by Apple Mail Privacy Protection, so compare clicks.
Sources: Mailchimp — Email marketing benchmarks <https://mailchimp.com/resources/email-marketing-benchmarks/>

## Extra costs (shipping, tax, fees) are the top reason shoppers abandon carts (Baymard)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cart-abandonment-extra-costs-top-reason/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Baymard's latest abandonment-reasons survey, page retrieved 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Extra costs are the #1 reason shoppers abandon carts"
True origin: Baymard Institute — Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics (reasons for abandonment) (2026 (rolling page))
Source says: 42% of US online shoppers have abandoned a cart because "I was just browsing / not ready to buy". However, if we ignore the "just browsing" segment ... 40 % Extra costs too high (shipping, tax, fees) 20 % Delivery was too slow 19 % I didn't trust the site with my credit card information 18 % The site wanted me to create an account
Method & sample: Baymard survey of US online shoppers (sample and year shown in Baymard's study, not in the excerpt we read).
Drift: Number: shares change between Baymard survey editions; quote the current figure and say it excludes shoppers who were just browsing
Interest: Baymard sells checkout-UX research.
Safe rephrasing: In Baymard's latest survey, excluding shoppers who were just browsing, 40% of US shoppers who abandoned a cart cited extra costs such as shipping, tax or fees, the top reason.
Sources: Baymard — Cart abandonment rate statistics <https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate>

## 40% of Gen Z use TikTok and Instagram instead of Google for search
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/40-percent-gen-z-use-tiktok-instead-of-google/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Remark made July 2022; underlying data unpublished
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "40% of young people use TikTok as their search engine" (Google)
True origin: Google (remark by SVP Prabhakar Raghavan, reported by TechCrunch) — Fortune Brainstorm Tech remarks (July 12, 2022) (2022)
Source says: In our studies, something like almost 40% of young people, when they're looking for a place for lunch, they don't go to Google Maps or Search ... They go to TikTok or Instagram.
Method & sample: Unpublished internal Google survey of U.S. users aged 18–24 (per Google's statement to TechCrunch).
Drift: Scope: 'looking for a place for lunch', not all searches; Population: U.S. 18–24, not 'Gen Z' globally; Source: an executive's spoken estimate ('something like almost 40%') about unpublished data
Interest: Google made the remark amid antitrust scrutiny, where showing competition helps it.
Safe rephrasing: A Google executive said in 2022 that internal research found almost 40% of U.S. 18–24-year-olds looking for a lunch spot went to TikTok or Instagram rather than Google Maps or Search.
Sources: TechCrunch — Google exec suggests Instagram and TikTok are eating into Google's core products (July 12, 2022) <https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/12/google-exec-suggests-instagram-and-tiktok-are-eating-into-googles-core-products-search-and-maps/>

## 50% of all searches will be voice searches by 2020 (comScore)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/50-percent-searches-voice-by-2020/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Prediction from 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "comScore: 50% of searches will be voice by 2020"
True origin: Andrew Ng (then Baidu chief scientist), interview in Fast Company — Inside Baidu's Plan To Beat Google By Taking Search Out Of The Text Era (Sept. 17, 2014) (2014 (prediction))
Source says: At the moment, around 10% of Baidu search queries are done by voice ... Ng forecasts that "in five years time at least 50% of all searches are going to be either through images or speech."
Method & sample: A personal forecast in an interview, about Baidu search in China; no data.
Drift: Attribution: credited to comScore, which says it never published it; Subject: 'images or speech', rewritten as voice only; Scope: Baidu/China, applied to all search; Type: a 2014 forecast quoted as fact
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: The '50% voice by 2020' figure traces to a 2014 forecast by Baidu's Andrew Ng that half of searches would use images or speech within five years; it was never a comScore finding.
Sources: Fast Company, Sept. 17, 2014 (Internet Archive copy) <https://web.archive.org/web/2015/https://www.fastcompany.com/3035721/baidu-is-taking-search-out-of-text-era-and-taking-on-google-with-deep-learning>; Brodie Clark — comScore's reply on the statistic (trace) <https://brodieclark.com/stop-using-comscores-2020-voice-search-stat/>; Econsultancy — trace of the prediction <https://econsultancy.com/the-future-of-voice-search-2020-and-beyond/>

## One minute of video is worth 1.8 million words (Forrester)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/1-minute-video-1-8-million-words/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Date of the attributed report not verified
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Forrester: 1 minute of video = 1.8 million words"
True origin: Attributed to James McQuivey (Forrester Research), 'How Video Will Take Over The World' (not public; we could not open it) — Arithmetic on 'a picture is worth a thousand words' (Undated (attributed Forrester report))
Source says: This figure is then multiplied by the 30 frames per second. We now have 30,000 words. Multiple that 30,000 words by 60 seconds and you get 1.8 million words.
Method & sample: No data: 1,000 words per picture × 30 frames × 60 seconds = 1.8 million.
Drift: Type: a figure of speech presented as research; Source: the Forrester report is not public; we could only open secondary explanations
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: The '1.8 million words' line is arithmetic on the proverb 'a picture is worth a thousand words', not a measurement; don't cite it as data.
Sources: Bold Content — Is 1 minute of video really worth 1.8 million words? (trace) <https://boldcontentvideo.com/2015/11/26/is-1-minute-of-video-really-worth-1-8-million-words/>

## For every customer who complains, 26 others stay silent
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/26-unhappy-customers-dont-complain/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Attributed to sources from 1999 or earlier; no dated document found
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Only 1 in 26 unhappy customers complains" (Lee Resource / TARP)
True origin: None found — attributed to 'Lee Resource Inc' or 'TARP Research 1999' — Customer-service fact lists (Undated (claimed 1999 or earlier))
Source says: For every customer who bothers to complain, 26 other customers remain silent. Source: Lee Resource Inc
Method & sample: None we could find: fact lists cite Lee Resource Inc or a 1999 TARP study without a title, sample or link.
Drift: Attribution: two different claimed origins, neither with a findable document
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Most dissatisfied customers never complain, so complaint counts understate problems; the exact '1 in 26' ratio has no findable study behind it.
Sources: Customer Service Manager — Customer Service Facts (cites Lee Resource Inc) <https://customerservicemanager.com/customer-service-facts/>; Provide Support — cites 'TARP Research 1999' <https://www.providesupport.com/blog/5-reasons-unhappy-customers-dont-complain/>

## Google processes 8.5 billion searches per day
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-8-5-billion-searches-per-day/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Google's own figure: over 5 trillion searches a year (Jan. 2025 data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google gets 8.5 billion searches a day"
True origin: None from Google — third-party estimate repeated in roundups — Marketing statistics roundups (c. 2022)
Source says: Every year, we see over 5 trillion searches on Google.
Method & sample: No Google document gives 8.5 billion a day; Internet Live Stats' page shows an older estimate (3.5 billion a day). Google's own 2025 figure works out to about 13.7 billion a day on average.
Drift: Attribution: a third-party estimate presented as a Google figure; Date: superseded by Google's 2025 statement
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Google says it sees more than 5 trillion searches a year (January 2025 data), which averages about 13.7 billion a day; the '8.5 billion' figure isn't from Google.
Sources: Google blog — Debbie Weinstein's remarks at OMR Germany (May 2025) <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/around-the-globe/google-europe/debbie-weinsteins-remarks-at-omr-germany/>; Internet Live Stats — Google search statistics (older estimate) <https://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/>; Neil Patel — 'How Google's 8.5 Billion Daily Searches Break Down' (example of the claim) <https://neilpatel.com/marketing-stats/google-daily-searches-breakdown/>

## 91% of businesses use video as a marketing tool (Wyzowl 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/91-percent-businesses-use-video-marketing/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Fieldwork late 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "91% of businesses use video marketing"
True origin: Wyzowl — State of Video Marketing 2026 (2026)
Source says: 91 % of businesses use video as a marketing tool ... Respondents 266 Fieldwork Late 2025
Method & sample: Online survey of 266 respondents (marketers and consumers) in late 2025.
Drift: Sample: 266 respondents total across marketers and consumers; self-selected
Interest: Wyzowl sells explainer-video production.
Safe rephrasing: In Wyzowl's 2026 survey (266 respondents, late 2025), 91% of businesses said they use video as a marketing tool.
Sources: Wyzowl — Video Marketing Statistics 2026 <https://www.wyzowl.com/video-marketing-statistics/>

## 82% of marketers say video gives them a good ROI (Wyzowl 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/82-percent-marketers-video-good-roi/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Fieldwork late 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Video marketing has the best ROI" / "82% of marketers see positive ROI from video"
True origin: Wyzowl — State of Video Marketing 2026 (2026)
Source says: 82 % of marketers say video has given them a good ROI
Method & sample: Self-reported opinion in an online survey of 266 respondents in late 2025; ROI not measured.
Drift: Metric: a self-reported opinion, not measured ROI; Sample: small, self-selected; publisher sells video
Interest: Wyzowl sells explainer-video production.
Safe rephrasing: In Wyzowl's 2026 survey, 82% of video marketers said video gave them a good ROI; that is self-reported, not measured.
Sources: Wyzowl — Video Marketing Statistics 2026 <https://www.wyzowl.com/video-marketing-statistics/>

## 75% of B2B buyers prefer a rep-free sales experience (Gartner)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/75-percent-b2b-buyers-prefer-rep-free/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2023 report; Gartner's newer survey (Aug.–Sept. 2024, published June 25, 2025) found 61%
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "75% of B2B buyers prefer not to talk to sales reps"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner B2B Buying Report (2023) (2023)
Source says: Seventy-five percent of B2B buyers say they prefer a rep-free sales experience, but self-service digital commerce purchases are significantly more likely to result in purchase regret.
Method & sample: Gartner B2B buyer surveys; the 2025 release surveyed 632 B2B buyers in Aug.–Sept. 2024.
Drift: Date: superseded by Gartner's 2025 figure of 61%; Context: the same 2023 report says rep-free purchases were more likely to cause regret
Interest: Gartner sells sales and marketing research.
Safe rephrasing: Gartner's latest published figure (survey of 632 B2B buyers, Aug.–Sept. 2024) is that 61% prefer an overall rep-free buying experience; the 75% figure is from its 2023 report.
Sources: Gartner B2B Buying Report 2023 (PDF) <https://emt.gartnerweb.com/ngw/globalassets/en/marketing/documents/gartner-b2b-buying-report_2023.pdf>; Gartner press release, June 25, 2025 (61%) <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-sales-survey-finds-61-percent-of-b2b-buyers-prefer-a-rep-free-buying-experience>

## 73% of B2B buyers actively avoid suppliers who send irrelevant outreach (Gartner, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/73-percent-b2b-buyers-avoid-irrelevant-outreach/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Aug.–Sept. 2024; published June 25, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most B2B buyers ignore irrelevant cold outreach"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner Sales Survey Finds 61% of B2B Buyers Prefer a Rep-Free Buying Experience (June 25, 2025) (2025 (2024 survey))
Source says: A survey of 632 B2B buyers conducted in August through September 2024 ... 73% of B2B buyers actively avoid suppliers who send irrelevant outreach.
Method & sample: Gartner survey of 632 B2B buyers, Aug.–Sept. 2024.
Drift: None
Interest: Gartner sells sales research.
Safe rephrasing: In a Gartner survey of 632 B2B buyers (Aug.–Sept. 2024), 73% said they actively avoid suppliers who send irrelevant outreach.
Sources: Gartner press release, June 25, 2025 <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-sales-survey-finds-61-percent-of-b2b-buyers-prefer-a-rep-free-buying-experience>

## Nearly nine in ten organizations use AI regularly in at least one business function (McKinsey, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-ai-use-nearly-9-in-10-organizations-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded May 4–June 8, 2026; published Aug. 25, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What share of companies use AI?" / "88% of companies use AI"
True origin: McKinsey & Company (QuantumBlack) — The state of AI in 2026: On the road to ROI (Aug. 25, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Nearly nine in ten respondents report regular use of AI in at least one business function, but more organizations are moving from isolated deployments to enterprise-scale adoption: 44 percent now report that AI is scaling across their enterprise, up from 38 percent a year ago
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,719 participants in 97 nations, May 4–June 8, 2026; weighted by each nation's share of global GDP. Respondents are self-selected executives and managers, not a random sample of firms.
Drift: Unit: share of survey respondents, not of all companies; Scope: 'regular use in at least one function' can mean a single chatbot
Interest: McKinsey sells AI and digital-transformation consulting (QuantumBlack).
Safe rephrasing: In McKinsey's 2026 global survey of 1,719 executives and managers, nearly nine in ten said their organization regularly uses AI in at least one function, and 44% said AI is scaling across the enterprise.
Sources: McKinsey — The state of AI in 2026 <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai>

## Only 37% of organizations report any EBIT impact from AI, and about 6% are 'AI high performers' (McKinsey, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-37-percent-report-ai-ebit-impact-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded May 4–June 8, 2026; published Aug. 25, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most companies see no profit from AI" / "Only 6% of companies get real value from AI"
True origin: McKinsey & Company (QuantumBlack) — The state of AI in 2026: On the road to ROI (Aug. 25, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Thirty-seven percent of respondents attribute at least some EBIT impact to AI use (about the same share as last year). And the proportion of AI high performers (those who attribute at least 5 percent of EBIT to their use of AI and describe the technology's impact as "significant") has remained flat at about 6 percent of all respondents.
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,719 participants in 97 nations, May 4–June 8, 2026; impact is self-reported by respondents.
Drift: Metric: self-reported attribution of EBIT, not audited financials
Interest: McKinsey sells AI and digital-transformation consulting (QuantumBlack).
Safe rephrasing: In McKinsey's 2026 survey, 37% of respondents attributed at least some EBIT impact to AI; about 6% were 'high performers' attributing 5% or more of EBIT to AI.
Sources: McKinsey — The state of AI in 2026 <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai>

## Generative AI could add $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion a year to the global economy (McKinsey)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-genai-2-6-to-4-4-trillion-a-year/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Estimate published June 14, 2023, based on the 2022 economy
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Generative AI will add $4.4 trillion a year"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier (June 14, 2023) (2023)
Source says: Our latest research estimates that generative AI could add the equivalent of $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion annually across the 63 use cases we analyzed
Method & sample: Modelled estimate across 63 use cases in 16 business functions, using a proprietary McKinsey database and input from more than 100 experts; not a measurement.
Drift: Type: 'could add' (potential, if fully adopted) often repeated as 'will add'; Range: the top of the range ($4.4T) is quoted without the bottom
Interest: McKinsey sells AI and digital-transformation consulting (QuantumBlack).
Safe rephrasing: McKinsey estimated in 2023 that generative AI could add $2.6–4.4 trillion a year across 63 use cases if they were fully adopted; it is a modelled potential, not a forecast of what will happen.
Sources: McKinsey — The economic potential of generative AI (2023) <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier>

## Generative AI could raise marketing productivity by 5–15% of total marketing spend (McKinsey)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mckinsey-genai-marketing-productivity-5-15-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Estimate published June 14, 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI can boost marketing productivity by up to 15%"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier (June 14, 2023) (2023)
Source says: We estimate that generative AI could increase the productivity of the marketing function with a value between 5 and 15 percent of total marketing spending.
Method & sample: Modelled estimate from McKinsey's use-case database and expert input; no field measurement.
Drift: Type: potential value, not an observed result; Context: about 75% of the total value sits in four functions, including marketing and sales
Interest: McKinsey sells AI and digital-transformation consulting (QuantumBlack).
Safe rephrasing: McKinsey estimated in 2023 that generative AI could add productivity worth 5–15% of total marketing spend; it is a model, not a measured gain.
Sources: McKinsey — The economic potential of generative AI (2023) <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier>

## Over 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by the end of 2027 (Gartner)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-40-percent-agentic-ai-projects-canceled-2027/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Prediction made June 25, 2025, for end of 2027
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "40% of AI agent projects fail" / "Gartner: most agentic AI projects get scrapped"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner Predicts Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027 (June 25, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Over 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by the end of 2027, due to escalating costs, unclear business value or inadequate risk controls, according to Gartner, Inc.
Method & sample: Analyst prediction; the release cites a January 2025 Gartner poll of 3,412 webinar attendees on investment levels, not on cancellations.
Drift: Type: a prediction, often repeated as a measured failure rate
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory services.
Safe rephrasing: Gartner predicted in June 2025 that more than 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by the end of 2027 because of costs, unclear value or weak risk controls.
Sources: Gartner press release, June 25, 2025 <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027>

## Only about 130 of the thousands of agentic AI vendors are real; the rest are 'agent washing' (Gartner)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-only-130-real-agentic-ai-vendors/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Estimate published June 25, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most AI agent vendors are fake" / "agent washing"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner Predicts Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027 (June 25, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Many vendors are contributing to the hype by engaging in "agent washing" – the rebranding of existing products, such as AI assistants, robotic process automation (RPA) and chatbots, without substantial agentic capabilities. Gartner estimates only about 130 of the thousands of agentic AI vendors are real.
Method & sample: Gartner analyst estimate; the counting method is not published.
Drift: Method: no published list or criteria behind '130'
Interest: Gartner sells vendor-evaluation research.
Safe rephrasing: Gartner estimated in June 2025 that only about 130 of the thousands of vendors marketing 'agentic AI' offer real agentic capabilities.
Sources: Gartner press release, June 25, 2025 <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027>

## 95% of generative AI pilots fail (MIT)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mit-95-percent-genai-pilots-fail/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Report dated July 2025; research period January–June 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "MIT study: 95% of generative AI pilots are failing"
True origin: MIT NANDA (Challapally, Pease, Raskar, Chari) — The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 (July 2025, preliminary findings) (2025)
Source says: Despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, this report uncovers a surprising result in that 95% of organizations are getting zero return.
Method & sample: Review of 300+ publicly disclosed AI initiatives, interviews with representatives of 52 organizations and survey responses from 153 senior leaders at four industry conferences; labelled preliminary.
Drift: Wording: '95% of organizations getting zero return' became '95% of pilots fail'; Definition: success means a 'marked and sustained' productivity or P&L impact as remarked by users or executives; Sample: small, conference-based, not representative
Interest: n/a (academic research project).
Safe rephrasing: A preliminary 2025 MIT NANDA report, based on 52 interviews, 153 survey responses and 300 public cases, said 95% of organizations were getting no measurable return from GenAI; it did not measure a pilot failure rate.
Sources: MIT NANDA — The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 (copy hosted by mlq.ai) <https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Business_2025_Report.pdf>

## About 17–20% of U.S. businesses used AI in the past two weeks, Dec. 2025–May 2026 (Census Bureau)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/census-btos-us-firms-using-ai-17-20-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: BTOS data Dec. 14, 2025–May 3, 2026; question wording revised Nov. 2025. Census publishes new BTOS readings every two weeks.
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percent of US businesses use AI?" / "Census: how many companies use AI"
True origin: U.S. Census Bureau — Large Firms With at Least 20 Employees Biggest AI Users (May 2026) (2026)
Source says: The BTOS data (December 2025 to May 2026) show that overall AI usage hovered between 17% and 20% — and that between 20% and 23% of businesses expected to be using it in the next six months.
Method & sample: Business Trends and Outlook Survey, which Census describes as a biweekly, nationally representative view of AI use across U.S. businesses; asks whether the business used AI 'in any business function' in the past two weeks.
Drift: Unit: share of firms (most are small), not share of employees; large firms report much higher use (37% at 250+ employees); Wording changed in Nov. 2025, so older readings are not comparable
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: The Census Bureau's Business Trends and Outlook Survey found 17–20% of U.S. businesses used AI in the prior two weeks between December 2025 and May 2026; check census.gov for the latest biweekly reading.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau — AI use by businesses (May 2026) <https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2026/05/ai-use-businesses.html>

## Sales and marketing is the business function where AI-using firms most often use AI (52%) (Census working paper, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/census-sales-marketing-top-ai-business-function-52-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: BTOS AI supplement, reference period Nov. 2025–Jan. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Marketing is the #1 use of AI in business"
True origin: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies — The Microstructure of AI Diffusion: Evidence From Firms, Business Functions, and Worker Tasks (CES-WP-26-25, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Among adopting firms, the scope of use remains limited: 57% of users integrate AI in three or fewer business functions, most commonly Sales and Marketing (52%), Strategy and Business Development (45%), and IT (41%).
Method & sample: 2026 AI supplement to the Census Business Trends and Outlook Survey, described by the authors as nationally representative; working paper (views are the authors').
Drift: Base: share of AI-using firms (about 18% of all firms), not of all firms
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency working paper).
Safe rephrasing: A 2026 Census working paper found that among U.S. firms using AI, 52% used it in sales and marketing, the most common function; only about 18% of firms used AI at all in that period.
Sources: Census CES Working Paper 26-25 (PDF) <https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2026/adrm/ces/CES-WP-26-25.pdf>

## Google's AI Overviews have more than 2 billion monthly users (Google, July 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ai-overviews-2-billion-monthly-users/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Stated July 23, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Google AI Overviews?"
True origin: Alphabet / Google (CEO Sundar Pichai) — Q2 2025 earnings call: CEO's remarks (July 23, 2025) (2025)
Source says: AI Overviews now has over 2 billion monthly users across more than 200 countries and territories and 40 languages.
Method & sample: Company-reported usage figure; Google does not publish how a 'monthly user' of AI Overviews is counted.
Drift: Definition: anyone shown an AI Overview counts, whether or not they wanted one
Interest: Google sells search advertising and promotes its AI features.
Safe rephrasing: Google said in July 2025 that AI Overviews had more than 2 billion monthly users in 200+ countries; this is a company-reported figure.
Sources: Google blog — Q2 2025 earnings call remarks <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/alphabet-earnings-q2-2025/>

## Google AI Mode has passed 1 billion monthly users and the Gemini app has 950 million (Google, July 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ai-mode-1-billion-gemini-950-million-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Stated July 22, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Gemini / Google AI Mode?"
True origin: Alphabet / Google (CEO Sundar Pichai) — Q2 2026 earnings call: Remarks from our CEO (July 22, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Since expanding AI Mode globally last October, we've surpassed 1 billion monthly active users. ... the Gemini app, which now has 950 million monthly active users, with daily active users tripling in the last year.
Method & sample: Company-reported monthly active users.
Drift: Definition: company-defined monthly active users; not independently audited
Interest: Google sells advertising and AI subscriptions.
Safe rephrasing: Google said on July 22, 2026 that AI Mode had passed 1 billion monthly active users and the Gemini app had 950 million.
Sources: Google blog — Q2 2026 earnings call remarks <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/alphabet-earnings-q2-2026/>; Google blog — Q2 2025 earnings call remarks (Gemini app 450M then) <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/alphabet-earnings-q2-2025/>

## ChatGPT has more than 800 million weekly users (OpenAI, Oct. 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/chatgpt-800-million-weekly-users/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Stated Oct. 6, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use ChatGPT?" / "ChatGPT has 800M weekly users"
True origin: OpenAI (Sam Altman, DevDay keynote) — OpenAI DevDay 2025 (Oct. 6, 2025) (2025)
Source says: 800M+ weekly ChatGPT users
Method & sample: Company-reported weekly active users; OpenAI does not publish its counting method.
Drift: Date: an October 2025 figure; OpenAI may have reported newer numbers since; Definition: weekly active users, not unique people
Interest: OpenAI sells ChatGPT subscriptions and API access.
Safe rephrasing: OpenAI said at DevDay on Oct. 6, 2025 that ChatGPT had more than 800 million weekly users; this is self-reported.
Sources: OpenAI — DevDay 2025 page <https://openai.com/devday/2025/>; TechCrunch — Sam Altman says ChatGPT has hit 800M weekly active users (Oct. 6, 2025) <https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/06/sam-altman-says-chatgpt-has-hit-800m-weekly-active-users/>

## 50% of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI in daily life; 10% are more excited (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-50-percent-americans-more-concerned-than-excited-ai/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded June 9–15, 2025; published Sept. 17, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most Americans are worried about AI" / "How do Americans feel about AI?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — How Americans View AI and Its Impact on People and Society (Sept. 17, 2025) (2025)
Source says: 50% say they're more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life, up from 37% in 2021. 10% are more excited than concerned. 38% say they're equally excited and concerned.
Method & sample: Pew American Trends Panel survey of 5,023 U.S. adults, June 9–15, 2025; probability-based, weighted.
Drift: None
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In a June 2025 Pew survey of 5,023 U.S. adults, 50% said they were more concerned than excited about AI in daily life, 10% more excited and 38% equally both.
Sources: Pew Research Center — How Americans View AI (2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/09/17/how-americans-view-ai-and-its-impact-on-people-and-society/>

## 56% of AI experts but only 17% of U.S. adults expect AI to have a positive impact on the U.S. over 20 years (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-ai-experts-56-vs-public-17-positive-impact/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Public survey Aug. 12–18, 2024; expert survey Aug. 14–Oct. 31, 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI experts are far more optimistic than the public"
True origin: Pew Research Center — How the U.S. Public and AI Experts View Artificial Intelligence (Apr. 3, 2025) (2025)
Source says: the AI experts we surveyed are far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years (56% vs. 17%).
Method & sample: Survey of 5,410 U.S. adults (American Trends Panel) and 1,013 AI experts drawn from authors and presenters at 21 AI conferences.
Drift: Sample: 'experts' are conference authors and presenters, not a random sample of the field
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew found in 2024 surveys that 56% of AI experts, versus 17% of U.S. adults, expect AI to have a positive impact on the U.S. over the next 20 years.
Sources: Pew Research Center — How the U.S. Public and AI Experts View AI (2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/03/how-the-us-public-and-ai-experts-view-artificial-intelligence/>

## 26% of U.S. teens have used ChatGPT for schoolwork, up from 13% in 2023 (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-teens-chatgpt-schoolwork-26-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Sept. 18–Oct. 10, 2024; published Jan. 15, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many students use ChatGPT for homework?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — About a quarter of U.S. teens have used ChatGPT for schoolwork – double the share in 2023 (Jan. 15, 2025) (2025)
Source says: The share of teens who say they use ChatGPT for their schoolwork has risen to 26%, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17. That's up from 13% in 2023.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center survey of 1,391 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17, Sept. 18–Oct. 10, 2024, conducted through Ipsos.
Drift: None — U.S. teens 13–17; ChatGPT only, not all AI tools
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: A Pew survey published in January 2025 found 26% of U.S. teens ages 13–17 had used ChatGPT for schoolwork, double the 13% in 2023.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Teens and ChatGPT for schoolwork (2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/15/about-a-quarter-of-us-teens-have-used-chatgpt-for-schoolwork-double-the-share-in-2023/>

## Google users clicked a link inside an AI summary on just 1% of visits; 18% of searches showed one (Pew, March 2025 data)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-ai-summary-links-clicked-1-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Browsing data from March 2025; published July 22, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Almost nobody clicks the links in AI Overviews"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Google users are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results (July 22, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Google users who encountered an AI summary also rarely clicked on a link in the summary itself. This occurred in just 1% of all visits to pages with such a summary. ... Some 18% of all the Google searches in our study generated an AI summary as part of the search results.
Method & sample: Analysis of the web browsing data of 900 U.S. adults in KnowledgePanel Digital, who agreed to install an app that tracks their browsing, during March 2025.
Drift: Scope: one month of U.S. desktop and mobile browsing, before AI Mode launched widely
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's analysis of March 2025 browsing data found 18% of Google searches showed an AI summary, and users clicked a link inside the summary on only 1% of those visits.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Google users and AI summaries (2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/>

## 80% of marketers use AI for content creation (HubSpot, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/hubspot-80-percent-marketers-use-ai-content-creation-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2026 report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most marketers now use AI to create content"
True origin: HubSpot — The 2026 State of Marketing Report (2026)
Source says: 80% of marketers use AI for content creation, and 75% use it for media production.
Method & sample: HubSpot marketer survey; the public landing page does not state sample size, dates or countries.
Drift: Method: no sample or fieldwork dates on the public page; Sample: likely skewed toward HubSpot's audience
Interest: HubSpot sells marketing software with built-in AI features.
Safe rephrasing: HubSpot's 2026 State of Marketing report says 80% of surveyed marketers use AI for content creation; the public page gives no sample size.
Sources: HubSpot — 2026 State of Marketing Report <https://www.hubspot.com/state-of-marketing>

## More than 1 billion people use standalone AI platforms each month (Kepios / DataReportal, Oct. 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/datareportal-1-billion-people-use-ai-monthly/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Data up to October 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use AI worldwide?"
True origin: Kepios (DataReportal, with Meltwater and We Are Social) — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (published Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: Kepios's analysis indicates that more than 1 billion people now use LLMs and GenAI platforms each month. It's important to note that this figure relies on extrapolations of data from multiple sources
Method & sample: Kepios extrapolation from multiple company and third-party sources; no single survey.
Drift: Method: an extrapolation, as the source itself warns; Scope: excludes AI features inside other products, such as Google's AI Overviews
Interest: DataReportal reports are produced with Meltwater and We Are Social, which sell marketing services.
Safe rephrasing: Kepios estimated in October 2025 that more than 1 billion people use standalone AI platforms each month, an extrapolation from several sources.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## 90% of online content will be AI-generated by 2026 (Europol)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/90-percent-online-content-synthetic-by-2026-europol/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Cited report published 2022
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Europol: 90% of online content will be synthetic by 2026"
True origin: Attributed to Europol Innovation Lab — Facing reality? Law enforcement and the challenge of deepfakes (2022) (2022 (cited report))
Source says: Synthetic media refers to media generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence (AI).
Method & sample: We fetched the full text of the Europol report this figure is credited to and searched it for '90', 'per cent', 'as much as' and 'estimate'; it contains no 90% forecast. If the figure exists, it came from a source the report does not quote.
Drift: Attribution: a forecast credited to Europol that its deepfakes report does not contain
Interest: n/a
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite it. If you need a figure on AI-generated content, use a measured study with a stated method and date.
Sources: Europol Innovation Lab — Facing reality? Law enforcement and the challenge of deepfakes (PDF) <https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/Europol_Innovation_Lab_Facing_Reality_Law_Enforcement_And_The_Challenge_Of_Deepfakes.pdf>

## Only about 4% of creators are professionals earning more than $100,000 a year (Goldman Sachs)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/only-4-percent-creators-earn-over-100k-goldman/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published Apr. 19, 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Only 4% of creators make over $100K"
True origin: Goldman Sachs Research — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 (Apr. 19, 2023) (2023)
Source says: Only about 4% of global creators are deemed professionals, meaning they pull in more than $100,000 a year.
Method & sample: Goldman Sachs Research estimate; the public article does not give the underlying data or survey.
Drift: Method: estimate without published data; Date: 2023
Interest: Goldman Sachs advises and invests in platform and media companies.
Safe rephrasing: Goldman Sachs Research estimated in 2023 that only about 4% of the world's roughly 50 million creators are professionals earning over $100,000 a year.
Sources: Goldman Sachs — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 <https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-creator-economy-could-approach-half-a-trillion-dollars-by-2027>

## Brand deals make up about 70% of creators' revenue (Goldman Sachs)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/brand-deals-70-percent-creator-income-goldman/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published Apr. 19, 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most creator income comes from brand deals"
True origin: Goldman Sachs Research — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 (Apr. 19, 2023) (2023)
Source says: Brand deals are the main source of revenue at about 70%, according to survey data.
Method & sample: 'Survey data' cited without naming the survey, sample or year.
Drift: Method: survey not identified
Interest: Goldman Sachs advises and invests in platform and media companies.
Safe rephrasing: Goldman Sachs Research said in 2023 that, according to unnamed survey data, brand deals account for about 70% of creator revenue.
Sources: Goldman Sachs — The creator economy could approach half-a-trillion dollars by 2027 <https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-creator-economy-could-approach-half-a-trillion-dollars-by-2027>

## There are about 200 million creators worldwide (Linktree)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/200-million-creators-linktree/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2022 report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "200 million people consider themselves creators"
True origin: Linktree — 2022 Creator Report (2022)
Source says: ~200M Creators
Method & sample: A total-addressable-market estimate built from external data (Statista, Omnicore, Global Media Insight and platform figures) broken down by follower counts; not a survey or census of creators.
Drift: Type: a market-sizing estimate quoted as a count of people; Definition: 'creator' set by follower thresholds chosen by Linktree; Date: 2022
Interest: Linktree sells link-in-bio tools to creators.
Safe rephrasing: Linktree's 2022 Creator Report estimated a market of about 200 million creators from third-party platform data; it is a sizing estimate, not a headcount.
Sources: Linktree — 2022 Creator Report <https://linktr.ee/creator-report/>

## Only 12% of full-time creators make more than $50,000 a year (Linktree)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/12-percent-full-time-creators-earn-over-50k-linktree/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey 2021; report 2022
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most full-time creators earn less than $50K"
True origin: Linktree — 2022 Creator Report (Linktree Creator Survey, 2021) (2022 (2021 survey))
Source says: 12 % of full-time creators make greater than $50k 46 % of full-time creators make less than $1K
Method & sample: Linktree Creator Survey (2021) of 9,576 Linktree users; self-selected and self-reported income.
Drift: Sample: Linktree's own users, not all creators; Date: 2021 data
Interest: Linktree sells link-in-bio tools to creators.
Safe rephrasing: In Linktree's 2021 survey of 9,576 of its users, 12% of full-time creators reported earning more than $50,000 a year and 46% less than $1,000.
Sources: Linktree — 2022 Creator Report <https://linktr.ee/creator-report/>

## Kids are three times more likely to want to be a YouTuber (29%) than an astronaut (11%) (LEGO/Harris Poll)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/kids-want-to-be-youtubers-29-percent-astronauts-11/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey May 30–June 8, 2019
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "More kids want to be YouTubers than astronauts"
True origin: The LEGO Group / The Harris Poll — LEGO Group kicks off global program to inspire the next generation of space explorers (press release, July 16, 2019) (2019)
Source says: The survey also revealed that today's children are three times more likely to aspire to be a YouTuber (29%) than an Astronaut (11%).
Method & sample: Online Harris Poll for LEGO of 3,000 children aged 8–12 (1,000 each in China, the U.S. and the U.K.), May 30–June 8, 2019; not a probability sample.
Drift: Scope: an average across the U.S., U.K. and China; in China, astronaut was the top choice; Date: 2019
Interest: LEGO commissioned the survey for its Apollo 11 anniversary space-exploration campaign.
Safe rephrasing: A 2019 Harris Poll for LEGO of 3,000 children aged 8–12 in the U.S., U.K. and China found 29% wanted to be a YouTuber and 11% an astronaut; results differed sharply by country.
Sources: LEGO Group press release via PR Newswire, July 16, 2019 <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lego-group-kicks-off-global-program-to-inspire-the-next-generation-of-space-explorers-as-nasa-celebrates-50-years-of-moon-landing-300885423.html>; CNBC — More children dream of being YouTubers than astronauts (July 19, 2019) <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/more-children-dream-of-being-youtubers-than-astronauts-lego-says.html>

## About one in five U.S. adults (21%) regularly get news from news influencers on social media (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-21-percent-regularly-get-news-from-news-influencers/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Aug. 18–24, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans get news from influencers?"
True origin: Pew Research Center (Pew-Knight Initiative) — News Influencers Fact Sheet (2025) (2025)
Source says: About one-in-five U.S. adults (21%) say they regularly get news from news influencers on social media, identical to when we first asked this in 2024.
Method & sample: Pew survey of U.S. adults, Aug. 18–24, 2025; news influencers defined as people with a large following who often post about news or political or social issues.
Drift: None — 38% of adults 18–29 say this, versus 8% of those 65+
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In an August 2025 Pew survey, 21% of U.S. adults said they regularly get news from news influencers on social media, including 38% of adults under 30.
Sources: Pew Research Center — News Influencers Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-influencers/>

## TikTok has 1 billion monthly users
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tiktok-1-billion-monthly-users/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Company announcement of Sept. 27, 2021
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "TikTok has over a billion users"
True origin: TikTok — Thanks a billion! (TikTok Newsroom, Sept. 27, 2021) (2021)
Source says: More than 1 billion people around the world now come to TikTok every month to be entertained as they learn, laugh, or discover something new.
Method & sample: Company-reported monthly users; no counting method published.
Drift: Date: a 2021 company milestone repeated as a current figure
Interest: TikTok sells advertising.
Safe rephrasing: TikTok announced in September 2021 that more than 1 billion people used it every month; check TikTok's newsroom for any newer figure.
Sources: TikTok Newsroom — Thanks a billion! (Sept. 27, 2021) <https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/1-billion-people-on-tiktok>

## 87% of marketers expect to increase influencer marketing budgets in 2026 (Influencer Marketing Hub)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/87-percent-brands-increase-influencer-budgets-2026-imh/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey for the 2026 report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most brands are increasing influencer budgets"
True origin: Influencer Marketing Hub — Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report 2026 (2026)
Source says: Across respondents to this question about influencer marketing budget allocation in 2026, 87.49% expect their influencer marketing budget to increase, while only 5.55% expect a decrease.
Method & sample: Opt-in online survey of 600+ respondents; percentages are among those who answered each question; planned behaviour, not actual spend.
Drift: Type: intentions, not measured budgets; Sample: self-selected; publisher reviews influencer platforms
Interest: Influencer Marketing Hub earns from influencer-platform reviews and advertising.
Safe rephrasing: In Influencer Marketing Hub's 2026 opt-in survey (600+ respondents), 87% of those answering said they expect their influencer budget to rise in 2026.
Sources: Influencer Marketing Hub — Benchmark Report 2026 <https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report/>

## Consumers are 98% more likely to trust recommendations from YouTube creators than from influencers on other platforms (Google/Ipsos)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-creators-98-percent-more-trusted-google-ipsos/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey July–Aug. 2023; article March 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "YouTube creators are the most trusted influencers"
True origin: Google (Think with Google), citing a Google/Ipsos study — Retail never stands still. Here's how marketers can keep pace (March 2025) (2025 (2023 survey))
Source says: Consumers are 98% more likely to trust recommendations from YouTube creators than from influencers on other platforms.
Method & sample: Google/Ipsos online survey of 13,328 social-app users aged 18–54 in seven countries, July–Aug. 2023 (per the article's footnote).
Drift: Sponsor: Google owns YouTube; Metric: '98% more likely' is a relative difference, not '98% trust'
Interest: Google owns YouTube and sells YouTube advertising.
Safe rephrasing: A 2023 Google/Ipsos survey of 13,328 social-app users in seven countries, published by Google, found respondents were 98% more likely to trust recommendations from YouTube creators than from influencers elsewhere.
Sources: Think with Google — Retail never stands still (March 2025) <https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/app-and-mobile/page-load-time-statistics/>

## Google had 89.94% of worldwide search engine market share in September 2026 (StatCounter)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-google-89-94-percent-search-share-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026 (monthly data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What is Google's search market share?" / "Google has 90% of search"
True origin: StatCounter Global Stats — Search Engine Market Share Worldwide (September 2026) (2026)
Source says: Search Engine Market Share Worldwide - September 2026 Google 89.94 % bing 5.29 % Yahoo! 1.36 % YANDEX 1.3 % DuckDuckGo 0.74 % Baidu 0.44 %
Method & sample: StatCounter tracking code on a large network of websites; measures search referrals to those sites, not searches performed.
Drift: Metric: share of referral traffic seen by StatCounter's network, not query volume; Scope: excludes AI chatbots, which StatCounter tracks separately
Interest: StatCounter sells web analytics.
Safe rephrasing: StatCounter data for September 2026 put Google at 89.94% of worldwide search engine referrals, ahead of Bing at 5.29%.
Sources: StatCounter — Search Engine Market Share Worldwide <https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share>

## Mobile devices accounted for 58.99% of worldwide web traffic in September 2026 (StatCounter)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-mobile-58-99-percent-web-traffic-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026 (monthly data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percentage of web traffic is mobile?" / "60% of traffic is mobile"
True origin: StatCounter Global Stats — Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share Worldwide (September 2026) (2026)
Source says: Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share Worldwide - September 2026 Mobile 58.99 % Desktop 39.26 % Tablet 1.76 %
Method & sample: StatCounter tracking code on a large network of websites; share of page views by device type.
Drift: Scope: worldwide; mobile share varies widely by country and by site
Interest: StatCounter sells web analytics.
Safe rephrasing: StatCounter's September 2026 data showed 58.99% of worldwide page views from mobile devices, 39.26% from desktop and 1.76% from tablets.
Sources: StatCounter — Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share Worldwide <https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet>

## Super Bowl LX drew an estimated 125.6 million viewers (Nielsen, Feb. 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/super-bowl-lx-125-6-million-viewers/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Game played Feb. 8, 2026; figure updated after the initial Feb. 10 report of 124.9 million
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people watched the Super Bowl?"
True origin: Nielsen — Super Bowl LX Delivers 125.6 Million Viewers (Feb. 10, 2026, updated) (2026)
Source says: An estimated 125.6* million viewers watched Super Bowl LX on Sunday, February 8, according to Nielsen's Big Data + Panel measurement.
Method & sample: Nielsen Big Data + Panel measurement, including out-of-home and digital viewing across NBC, Peacock, Telemundo, NBC Sports Digital and NFL+.
Drift: None — second most-watched Super Bowl, behind Super Bowl LIX (127.7 million) in 2025; first Super Bowl measured with Big Data + Panel
Interest: Nielsen sells audience measurement.
Safe rephrasing: Nielsen estimated that 125.6 million viewers watched Super Bowl LX on Feb. 8, 2026, the second-largest Super Bowl audience on record.
Sources: Nielsen — Super Bowl LX Delivers 125.6 Million Viewers <https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2026/super-bowl-lx/>

## U.S. retail e-commerce sales were $1.23 trillion in 2025, 16.4% of total retail sales (Census)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/census-ecommerce-2025-1-23-trillion-16-4-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full year 2025; released March 10, 2026 (delayed by the federal funding lapse)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How big is US e-commerce?" / "What share of retail is online?"
True origin: U.S. Census Bureau — Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales, 4th Quarter 2025 (CB26-42) (2026)
Source says: Total e-commerce sales for 2025 were estimated at 1,233.7 billion, an increase of 5.4 percent (±1.2%) from 2024. Total retail sales in 2025 increased 3.5 percent (±0.4%) from 2024. E-commerce sales in 2025 accounted for 16.4 percent of total sales.
Method & sample: Census Monthly Retail Trade Survey; nonemployers are excluded since the April 2025 revision, and ticket sales agencies and other non-retail services are not counted.
Drift: Scope: retail goods only; excludes travel and services bought online; Note: the quarterly seasonally adjusted share is different (17.1% in Q2 2026)
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: The Census Bureau estimated U.S. retail e-commerce sales at $1,233.7 billion in 2025, up 5.4% from 2024 and 16.4% of total retail sales.
Sources: Census Bureau — Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales, Q4 2025 (PDF) <https://www2.census.gov/retail/releases/historical/ecomm/25q4.pdf>

## 6.04 billion people use the internet, 73.2% of the world's population (Kepios, Oct. 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/datareportal-6-04-billion-internet-users-oct-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Start of October 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use the internet?"
True origin: Kepios (DataReportal, with Meltwater and We Are Social) — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (published Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: Kepios analysis indicates that the total number of people using the internet reached 6.04 billion by the start of October 2025, resulting in a global internet penetration figure of 73.2 percent.
Method & sample: Kepios synthesis of ITU, national statistics and other data; India and China figures were revised upward in 2025.
Drift: Comparability: the report warns its figures can't be compared with earlier editions because of revisions
Interest: DataReportal reports are produced with Meltwater and We Are Social, which sell marketing services.
Safe rephrasing: Kepios estimated 6.04 billion internet users in October 2025 (73.2% of the world), with about 2.2 billion people still offline.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## There are 5.66 billion social media user identities, 68.7% of the world's population (Kepios, Oct. 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/datareportal-5-66-billion-social-media-user-identities/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: October 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use social media?" / "5 billion social media users"
True origin: Kepios (DataReportal, with Meltwater and We Are Social) — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (published Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: Kepios analysis reveals that global social media user identities now stand at 5.66 billion, with that figure equivalent to 68.7 percent of the global population.
Method & sample: Kepios analysis of platform advertising-audience and user data.
Drift: Unit: 'user identities' may not be unique people, as the report notes
Interest: DataReportal reports are produced with Meltwater and We Are Social, which sell marketing services.
Safe rephrasing: Kepios counted 5.66 billion social media user identities in October 2025, equal to 68.7% of the world's population; identities are not necessarily unique people.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## The typical internet user spends 18 hours 36 minutes a week on social and video platforms (GWI via DataReportal, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/datareportal-18-hours-36-minutes-social-video-per-week/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: GWI data reported Oct. 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much time do people spend on social media per day?" / "2.5 hours a day on social media"
True origin: DataReportal (Kepios), citing GWI survey data — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (published Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: if we add video-centric platforms like YouTube and TikTok into this mix, daily average consumption jumps to well over 2½ hours per day, resulting in a weekly average of 18 hours and 36 minutes per user.
Method & sample: GWI online panel survey data, as analysed by DataReportal; self-reported time.
Drift: Metric: self-reported time from an online panel; Scope: includes YouTube and TikTok; social networks alone are just over 1 hour a day
Interest: GWI sells audience research; DataReportal partners with Meltwater and We Are Social.
Safe rephrasing: GWI data reported by DataReportal in October 2025 put average time on social and video platforms at 18 hours 36 minutes a week, well over 2½ hours a day.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## The typical TikTok user spends 1 hour 37 minutes a day in the Android app (Similarweb via DataReportal, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tiktok-users-97-minutes-a-day-android-similarweb/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Similarweb data reported Oct. 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much time do people spend on TikTok per day?"
True origin: DataReportal (Kepios), citing Similarweb App Intelligence — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (published Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: Similarweb's App Intelligence data shows that the typical TikTok user spends 1 hour and 37 minutes per day using the platform's Android app, which is roughly 14 percent longer than the typical YouTube user spends using the YouTube Android app.
Method & sample: Similarweb panel measurement of Android app usage; iOS and web use not included.
Drift: Scope: Android only; per active user, not per person in the population
Interest: Similarweb sells digital-market intelligence.
Safe rephrasing: Similarweb data reported by DataReportal in October 2025 showed TikTok's Android users averaging 1 hour 37 minutes a day in the app, about 14% more than YouTube's.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## Americans reported losing $2.1 billion to scams that started on social media in 2025, the costliest contact method (FTC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-social-media-scams-2-1-billion-losses-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Calendar year 2025 reports; published Apr. 27, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much do people lose to social media scams?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — New FTC Data Show People Have Lost Billions to Social Media Scams (Apr. 27, 2026) (2026)
Source says: New data from the Federal Trade Commission show that, in 2025, nearly 30% of people who reported losing money to a scam said that it started on social media, with reported losses reaching a staggering $2.1 billion.
Method & sample: FTC Consumer Sentinel reports filed by consumers; only reported losses, so true losses are higher.
Drift: Scope: reported losses only; most fraud is never reported
Interest: n/a (federal agency).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC said reported losses to scams that began on social media reached $2.1 billion in 2025, more than any other contact method; shopping scams from social ads were the most reported type.
Sources: FTC press release, Apr. 27, 2026 <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/new-ftc-data-show-people-have-lost-billions-social-media-scams>

## Video will make up 82% of all internet traffic (Cisco)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/video-82-percent-internet-traffic-cisco/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Forecast for 2022, made in 2018–2019
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Video is 82% of internet traffic" (as current)
True origin: Cisco — Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Trends, 2017–2022 White Paper (updated Feb. 27, 2019) (2019)
Source says: Globally, IP video traffic will be 82 percent of all IP traffic (both business and consumer) by 2022, up from 75 percent in 2017.
Method & sample: Cisco forecast model; not a measurement. Cisco's later Annual Internet Report (2018–2023) does not repeat a video-traffic share.
Drift: Type: a forecast quoted as a measurement; Date: the forecast year (2022) has passed and Cisco stopped publishing this forecast; Scope: all IP traffic, not just the public internet
Interest: Cisco sells networking equipment whose demand rises with traffic.
Safe rephrasing: Cisco forecast in 2019 that video would be 82% of global IP traffic by 2022; it was a projection and Cisco no longer updates it.
Sources: Cisco VNI Forecast 2017–2022 (Internet Archive copy, 2020) <https://web.archive.org/web/2019/https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html>; Cisco Annual Internet Report 2018–2023 (no video-share figure) <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11-741490.html>

## Articles with images get 94% more views
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/articles-with-images-94-percent-more-views/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Infographic c. 2012
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Content with images gets 94% more views" (Jeff Bullas)
True origin: MDG Advertising infographic, republished by Jeff Bullas — 6 Powerful Reasons Why you Should Include Images in your Marketing (infographic, c. 2012) (c. 2012)
Source says: Articles with images get 94% more total views
Method & sample: None found: the page attributes the infographic to MDG Advertising and names no study, sample or date for the 94% figure.
Drift: Attribution: often credited to Jeff Bullas as research; he republished an agency infographic; Date: about 14 years old
Interest: MDG Advertising sells design and marketing services.
Safe rephrasing: Don't cite '94%'. If you need evidence that images help, cite a test with a stated sample and method.
Sources: Jeff Bullas — infographic by MDG Advertising <https://www.jeffbullas.com/6-powerful-reasons-why-you-should-include-images-in-your-marketing-infographic/>

## Long content ranks better: the average first-page Google result has 1,447 words (Backlinko)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/first-page-google-result-1447-words-backlinko/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Analysis of 11.8 million results; page last updated Apr. 14, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The ideal blog post length is 1,447 words" / "Longer content ranks higher"
True origin: Backlinko (Brian Dean) — We Analyzed 11.8 Million Google Search Results (last updated Apr. 14, 2025) (Page last updated 2025 (study date not stated on the page))
Source says: We discovered that word count was evenly distributed among the top 10 results. The average Google first page result contains 1,447 words.
Method & sample: Correlation study of 11.8 million Google search results; correlation, not causation.
Drift: Meaning: the same sentence says word count was evenly distributed, i.e. no ranking advantage for longer pages; Type: an average turned into a target length
Interest: Backlinko promotes Semrush SEO software (the page carries a Semrush trial offer).
Safe rephrasing: Backlinko's analysis of 11.8 million results found the average first-page result had 1,447 words, but word count was evenly distributed across positions 1–10, so it doesn't show longer content ranks higher.
Sources: Backlinko — We Analyzed 11.8 Million Google Search Results <https://backlinko.com/search-engine-ranking>

## Threads, Bluesky and Truth Social are each used by about one in ten or fewer U.S. adults (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-threads-bluesky-truth-social-one-in-ten-or-fewer/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Feb.–June 2025; published Nov. 20, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans use Threads / Bluesky?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: This year we also asked about three platforms that are used by about one-in-ten or fewer U.S. adults: Threads, Bluesky, and Truth Social.
Method & sample: Pew Research Center NPORS survey of 5,022 U.S. adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; weighted to the U.S. adult population.
Drift: None — exact shares are in Pew's fact sheet charts
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's 2025 survey found Threads, Bluesky and Truth Social are each used by about one in ten or fewer U.S. adults.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>

## U.S. programmatic advertising revenue reached $162.4 billion in 2025, up 20.5% (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-programmatic-ad-revenue-162-4-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full-year 2025; published April 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How big is programmatic advertising?"
True origin: IAB and PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026)
Source says: Programmatic advertising revenues reached $162.4 billion in 2025, growing $27.6 billion (20.5% YoY growth, up from 18.0% in FY24).
Method & sample: Compiled by PwC from revenue data reported directly by companies selling internet advertising plus public corporate data; PwC does not audit the figures. U.S. only.
Drift: None
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital advertising.
Safe rephrasing: The IAB/PwC report put U.S. programmatic ad revenue at $162.4 billion in 2025, up 20.5% from 2024.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 (PDF) <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>; IAB — report page <https://www.iab.com/insights/internet-advertising-revenue-report-full-year-2025/>

## The top 10 companies took 84.1% of U.S. internet ad revenue in 2025 (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-top-10-companies-84-1-percent-digital-ad-revenue-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Full-year 2025; published April 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google, Meta and Amazon dominate digital ad spend"
True origin: IAB and PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026)
Source says: Since 2024, the top 10 companies have grown their market share by 3.4%, reaching 84.1%. Meanwhile, companies ranked 11 to 25, along with the remaining players, now hold 8.3% and 7.5
Method & sample: Compiled by PwC from revenue data reported directly by companies selling internet advertising plus public corporate data; PwC does not audit the figures. U.S. only.
Drift: None
Interest: IAB is the trade body of companies that sell digital advertising.
Safe rephrasing: The IAB/PwC report found the top 10 companies held 84.1% of U.S. internet advertising revenue in 2025, up from 2024.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 (PDF) <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>

## 57% of Americans 12+ have used a generative AI assistant; 93% know at least one AI brand (Edison, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-57-percent-americans-used-generative-ai-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published March 12, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What share of Americans have used generative AI?"
True origin: Edison Research at SSRS (with SiriusXM Media) — The Infinite Dial 2026 (March 12, 2026) (2026)
Source says: 93% of Americans age 12+ are familiar with at least one generative AI brand — a level of awareness that podcasting has not yet achieved after more than 20 years of measurement 57% of Americans age 12+ have ever used a generative AI assistant
Method & sample: National survey of Americans 12+ by Edison Research at SSRS (sample and fieldwork in the downloadable report).
Drift: Definition: 'ever used' includes one-time use; Scope: Americans 12+, not adults only (Pew's 34% figure is ChatGPT only, adults only)
Interest: Edison Research sells audio and AI-usage research; the study is supported by SiriusXM Media.
Safe rephrasing: Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 found 57% of Americans 12+ have ever used a generative AI assistant and 93% know at least one AI brand.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## 70% of CMOs call becoming an AI leader a critical goal, but only 30% report mature AI readiness (Gartner, 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gartner-only-30-percent-marketing-orgs-ai-ready-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey fielded Jan.–March 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most marketing teams aren't ready for AI"
True origin: Gartner — Gartner 2026 CMO Spend Survey (press release, May 11, 2026) (2026)
Source says: While 70% of CMOs say becoming an AI leader is a critical goal for 2026, only 30% report mature or fully developed AI readiness capabilities.
Method & sample: Survey of 401 CMOs and marketing leaders in North America, the UK and Europe; mostly $1B+ revenue companies.
Drift: Sample: large companies only
Interest: Gartner sells research and advisory services to marketing leaders.
Safe rephrasing: In Gartner's 2026 CMO Spend Survey of 401 marketing leaders, 70% said becoming an AI leader is a critical goal but only 30% reported mature AI readiness.
Sources: Gartner — 2026 CMO Spend Survey press release <https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-05-11-gartner-2026-cmo-spend-survey-finds-cmos-allocate-15-point-3-percent-of-marketing-budgets-to-ai-but-only-30-percent-are-ready-to-scale-ai-capabilities>

## To join the YouTube Partner Program you need 1,000 subscribers plus 4,000 watch hours in 12 months or 10 million Shorts views in 90 days
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-partner-program-1000-subscribers-4000-hours/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page as read on 2026-10-16; YouTube changes thresholds from time to time
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many subscribers do you need to monetize on YouTube?"
True origin: YouTube Help (Google) — YouTube Partner Program overview & eligibility (2026)
Source says: 1. Get 1,000 subscribers with 4,000 qualified watch hours in the last 12 months, or 2. Get 1,000 subscribers with 10 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days.
Method & sample: Official platform policy.
Drift: None — watch hours from Shorts in the Shorts Feed don't count toward the 4,000 hours
Interest: YouTube sets the rules and keeps a share of ad revenue.
Safe rephrasing: As of October 2026, YouTube's help center says full YouTube Partner Program eligibility needs 1,000 subscribers plus either 4,000 watch hours in 12 months or 10 million Shorts views in 90 days.
Sources: YouTube Help — YouTube Partner Program overview & eligibility <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en>

## YouTube Shorts creators keep 45% of their allocated ad revenue from the Creator Pool
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-shorts-creators-keep-45-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page as read on 2026-10-16; an eligibility change takes effect Feb. 1, 2027
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What is the YouTube Shorts revenue share?"
True origin: YouTube Help (Google) — YouTube Shorts monetization policies (2026)
Source says: Monetizing creators will keep 45% of their allocated revenue, regardless if music was used or not. ... Starting February 1, 2027, to be eligible to earn a share of Shorts ad revenue from the Creator Pool and YouTube Premium revenue for each month, you will need to have at least 10 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days.
Method & sample: Official platform policy.
Drift: Mechanism: Shorts Feed ad revenue is pooled and allocated by engaged views and music usage, then the 45% applies; Rule change: from Feb. 1, 2027, earning a monthly Shorts revenue share needs at least 10 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days
Interest: YouTube sets the rules and keeps the remaining share.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube's help center says monetizing Shorts creators keep 45% of the revenue allocated to them from the Shorts Creator Pool, which is split by share of engaged views.
Sources: YouTube Help — YouTube Shorts monetization policies <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/12504220?hl=en>

## Since Feb. 1, 2024, anyone sending 5,000+ emails a day to Gmail must use SPF, DKIM and DMARC, offer one-click unsubscribe and keep spam rates below 0.3%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gmail-bulk-sender-rules-5000-a-day-0-3-percent-spam/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: In force since Feb. 1, 2024; page read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What are Gmail's bulk sender requirements?"
True origin: Google Workspace Admin Help — Email sender guidelines (2024)
Source says: Starting February 1, 2024, email senders who send more than 5,000 messages per day to Gmail accounts must meet the requirements in this section. Set up SPF and DKIM email authentication for your domain. ... Marketing messages and subscribed messages must support one-click unsubscribe, and include a clearly visible unsubscribe link in the message body. ... Keep spam rates reported in Postmaster Tools below 0.3%.
Method & sample: Official mailbox-provider policy.
Drift: None — the 0.3% spam-rate ceiling and authentication rules apply to all senders, not only bulk senders
Interest: Google operates Gmail.
Safe rephrasing: Google's sender guidelines say that since Feb. 1, 2024, bulk senders (5,000+ messages a day to Gmail) need SPF, DKIM and DMARC, one-click unsubscribe, and a spam rate below 0.3%.
Sources: Google — Email sender guidelines <https://support.google.com/a/answer/81126?hl=en>

## Yahoo requires bulk senders to use SPF, DKIM and DMARC, support one-click unsubscribe and keep spam rates below 0.3%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/yahoo-sender-requirements-0-3-percent-one-click-unsubscribe/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Page read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What are Yahoo's email sender requirements?"
True origin: Yahoo Sender Hub — Sender Best Practices (2024)
Source says: Keep your spam rate below 0.3% ... Requirements for Bulk Senders: Authenticate your mail Implement both SPF & DKIM Publish a valid DMARC policy with at least p=none ... Implement a functioning list-unsubscribe header, which supports one-click unsubscribe for marketing and subscribed messages
Method & sample: Official mailbox-provider policy.
Drift: None
Interest: Yahoo operates Yahoo Mail and AOL Mail.
Safe rephrasing: Yahoo's sender guidelines require bulk senders to authenticate with SPF, DKIM and DMARC, support one-click unsubscribe, and keep spam complaints below 0.3%.
Sources: Yahoo Sender Hub — Best Practices <https://senders.yahooinc.com/best-practices/>

## ChatGPT had 80.48% of worldwide AI chatbot referral share in September 2026 (StatCounter)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-chatgpt-80-percent-ai-chatbot-share-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026 (monthly data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What is ChatGPT's market share?" / "Which AI chatbot is most used?"
True origin: StatCounter Global Stats — AI Chatbot Market Share Worldwide (September 2026) (2026)
Source says: AI Chatbot Market Share Worldwide - September 2026 ChatGPT 80.48 % Google Gemini 10.91 % Perplexity 5.85 % Microsoft Copilot 1.79 % Claude 0.95 % Deepseek 0.02 %
Method & sample: Share of referral traffic from AI chatbots to websites in StatCounter's network; not share of users or prompts.
Drift: Metric: referrals to websites, not usage; chatbots that link out more score higher
Interest: StatCounter sells web analytics.
Safe rephrasing: StatCounter's September 2026 data showed ChatGPT sending 80.48% of AI-chatbot referral traffic to websites in its network, ahead of Gemini (10.91%) and Perplexity (5.85%); this measures referrals, not users.
Sources: StatCounter — AI Chatbot Market Share Worldwide <https://gs.statcounter.com/ai-chatbot-market-share>

## 64% of U.S. teens use AI chatbots, including about 3 in 10 daily (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-64-percent-teens-use-ai-chatbots/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Sept. 25–Oct. 9, 2025; published Dec. 9, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many teens use AI chatbots?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 (Dec. 9, 2025) (2025)
Source says: 64% of teens say they use chatbots, including about 3 in 10 who do so daily
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,458 U.S. teens ages 13–17, Sept. 25–Oct. 9, 2025, through Ipsos KnowledgePanel (recruited via parents).
Drift: None — U.S. teens 13–17
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: A Pew survey of 1,458 U.S. teens in fall 2025 found 64% use AI chatbots, including about three in ten who do so daily.
Sources: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/>

## 16% of U.S. workers say at least some of their work is done with AI; 52% are worried about AI's future impact (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-16-percent-workers-do-some-work-with-ai/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Oct. 7–13, 2024; published Feb. 25, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many workers use AI at work?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — U.S. Workers Are More Worried Than Hopeful About Future AI Use in the Workplace (Feb. 25, 2025) (2025)
Source says: About half of workers (52%) say they're worried about the future impact of AI use in the workplace ... About one-in-six workers (16%) say at least some of their work is currently done with AI.
Method & sample: Pew American Trends Panel survey of 5,273 employed U.S. adults, Oct. 7–13, 2024; weighted.
Drift: Date: survey predates wider 2025–2026 adoption
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In a Pew survey published in February 2025, 16% of U.S. workers said at least some of their work is done with AI, and 52% said they were worried about AI's future impact at work.
Sources: Pew Research Center — U.S. workers and AI (2025) <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/02/25/u-s-workers-are-more-worried-than-hopeful-about-future-ai-use-in-the-workplace/>

## Average Google search ad CTR is 6.66% and average CPC is $5.26 (WordStream/LocaliQ 2025 benchmarks)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wordstream-google-ads-2025-ctr-6-66-cpc-5-26/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2025 benchmark report (advertiser accounts managed on WordStream/LocaliQ)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What's a good Google Ads CTR?" / "average cost per click on Google Ads"
True origin: WordStream by LocaliQ — Google Ads Benchmarks 2025 (2025)
Source says: The average click-through rate in Google Ads in 2025 is 6.66%. ... The average cost per click in Google Ads in 2025 is $5.26.
Method & sample: Averages across search campaigns of WordStream/LocaliQ client accounts, broken out by 20+ business categories. Sample size and date range are not stated on the page; mostly US small and mid-sized advertisers.
Drift: Scope: search network only, WordStream client accounts, not all Google advertisers; Industry spread is wide (CTR 5.44% for dentists to 13.10% for arts & entertainment)
Interest: WordStream (LocaliQ, part of Gannett) sells search and social ad management services and software.
Safe rephrasing: WordStream/LocaliQ's 2025 benchmarks, based on its client accounts, put the average Google search ad CTR at 6.66% and average CPC at $5.26, with large differences by industry.
Sources: WordStream — Google Ads Benchmarks 2025 <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/2025-google-ads-benchmarks>

## Average Google Ads conversion rate is 7.52% and average cost per lead is $70.11 (WordStream/LocaliQ 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wordstream-google-ads-2025-cvr-7-52-cpl-70-11/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2025 benchmark report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "average Google Ads conversion rate" / "Google Ads cost per lead benchmark"
True origin: WordStream by LocaliQ — Google Ads Benchmarks 2025 (2025)
Source says: The average conversion rate in Google Ads in 2025 is 7.52%. ... The average cost per lead in Google Ads in 2025 is $70.11.
Method & sample: Averages across WordStream/LocaliQ client search campaigns; what counts as a conversion or lead is set by each advertiser.
Drift: Metric: a 'conversion' can be a call, form or purchase depending on the account; Scope: client accounts of one agency/software vendor
Interest: WordStream (LocaliQ, part of Gannett) sells search and social ad management services and software.
Safe rephrasing: In WordStream/LocaliQ's 2025 benchmarks from its client accounts, Google search ads averaged a 7.52% conversion rate and $70.11 per lead.
Sources: WordStream — Google Ads Benchmarks 2025 <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/2025-google-ads-benchmarks>

## The average Google Ads click-through rate is 3.17% and the average cost per click is $2.69
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ads-average-ctr-3-17-percent-cpc-2-69/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: WordStream client data as of 2018
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Average Google Ads CTR is 3.17% (search) and 0.46% (display)"
True origin: WordStream — Google Ads Benchmarks for YOUR Industry (data as of 2018) (2018)
Source says: As of 2018, the industries with the lowest average click-through rates including Technology, B2B, and Consumer Services. The average click-through rate in Google Ads across all industries is 3.17% for search and 0.46% for display. ... The average cost per click in Google Ads across all industries is $2.69 for search and $0.63 for display.
Method & sample: Averages across WordStream client accounts (US, 20 industries), as of 2018.
Drift: Age: 2018 data still circulates as current; WordStream's 2025 figures are 6.66% CTR and $5.26 CPC; Scope: one vendor's client accounts
Interest: WordStream (LocaliQ, part of Gannett) sells search and social ad management services and software.
Safe rephrasing: WordStream's 2018 client data showed a 3.17% average search CTR and $2.69 CPC; its 2025 benchmarks report 6.66% and $5.26, so use the newer figures with the year.
Sources: WordStream — Google Ads industry benchmarks (2018 data) <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/02/29/google-adwords-industry-benchmarks>; WordStream — Google Ads Benchmarks 2025 <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/2025-google-ads-benchmarks>

## Facebook traffic campaigns average a 1.57% CTR and $0.77 CPC (WordStream 2024 benchmarks)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wordstream-facebook-traffic-ads-ctr-1-57-cpc-0-77/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2024 benchmark report (page last updated Sept. 14, 2026)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "average Facebook ads CTR" / "Facebook ads cost per click"
True origin: WordStream by LocaliQ — Facebook Ads Benchmarks 2024 (2024)
Source says: The average click-through rate in Facebook ads for traffic campaigns across all industries is 1.57%. This is up from last year's overall average of 1.51%. ... The average cost per click in Facebook ads for traffic campaigns across all industries is $0.77.
Method & sample: Averages across WordStream/LocaliQ client Facebook campaigns using the traffic objective, by industry. Sample size not stated.
Drift: Scope: traffic-objective campaigns only; leads campaigns have different numbers; Not Meta-published data
Interest: WordStream (LocaliQ, part of Gannett) sells search and social ad management services and software.
Safe rephrasing: WordStream's 2024 Facebook benchmarks from client accounts show traffic campaigns averaging a 1.57% CTR and $0.77 CPC.
Sources: WordStream — Facebook Ads Benchmarks 2024 <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/facebook-ads-benchmarks>

## Facebook lead campaigns average an 8.78% conversion rate and $21.98 cost per lead (WordStream 2024)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wordstream-facebook-lead-ads-cvr-8-78-cpl-21-98/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2024 benchmark report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "average Facebook cost per lead" / "Facebook lead ads conversion rate"
True origin: WordStream by LocaliQ — Facebook Ads Benchmarks 2024 (2024)
Source says: The average click-through rate in Facebook ads for leads campaigns across all industries is 2.53%. ... The average conversion rate in Facebook ads for leads campaigns across all industries is 8.78%. ... The average cost per lead in Facebook ads for leads campaigns across all industries is $21.98.
Method & sample: Averages across WordStream/LocaliQ client Facebook campaigns using the leads objective.
Drift: Range: CPL runs from about $20 to over $100 (legal services $104.58) by industry
Interest: WordStream (LocaliQ, part of Gannett) sells search and social ad management services and software.
Safe rephrasing: WordStream's 2024 benchmarks from client accounts show Facebook lead campaigns averaging a 2.53% CTR, 8.78% conversion rate and $21.98 per lead, varying widely by industry.
Sources: WordStream — Facebook Ads Benchmarks 2024 <https://www.wordstream.com/blog/facebook-ads-benchmarks>

## Brand engagement rate by followers averages 2.50% on TikTok and 0.15% on Facebook (Socialinsider 2026)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/socialinsider-2026-tiktok-engagement-2-50-facebook-0-15/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2026 report on brand posts through 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What's a good engagement rate on TikTok?" / "average Facebook engagement rate"
True origin: Socialinsider — 2026 Social Media Benchmarks (2026)
Source says: That's why we analyzed 70M social media posts across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X ... In 2026, TikTok's engagement rate by followers stands at an average of 2.50%. Facebook averaged 0.15% engagement
Method & sample: 70 million brand posts from a sample of international brands on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X; engagement rate = interactions divided by followers.
Drift: Metric: engagement by followers; rates by reach or views are higher; Scope: brand accounts, not creators or influencers
Interest: Socialinsider sells social media analytics software.
Safe rephrasing: Socialinsider's 2026 analysis of 70 million brand posts found average engagement by followers of 2.50% on TikTok and 0.15% on Facebook.
Sources: Socialinsider — 2026 Social Media Benchmarks <https://www.socialinsider.io/social-media-benchmarks>

## Instagram brand engagement averages about 0.45%, with carousels at 0.55% (Socialinsider)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/socialinsider-instagram-engagement-0-45-carousels-0-55/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q3 2026 quarterly benchmark
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "average Instagram engagement rate" / "carousels vs Reels engagement"
True origin: Socialinsider — Instagram Benchmarks (35M posts) (2026)
Source says: With insights coming from the analysis of 35M Instagram posts ... Engagement rate on Carousels remains steady at 0.55%. ... Instagram's engagement rate remained flat for Reels and Carousels over Q3 2026, platform's overall engagement rate averaging 0.45%.
Method & sample: 35 million Instagram posts from brand accounts of different sizes; engagement by followers.
Drift: Scope: brand accounts; influencer engagement rates are usually reported higher; Older '1–3% is a good Instagram engagement rate' rules predate these declines
Interest: Socialinsider sells social media analytics software.
Safe rephrasing: Socialinsider's analysis of 35 million brand posts puts average Instagram engagement at about 0.45% (Q3 2026), with carousels around 0.55%.
Sources: Socialinsider — Instagram benchmarks <https://www.socialinsider.io/blog/instagram-benchmarks>

## Brand engagement rates fell on every major platform, with X down 48% (Rival IQ benchmark report)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/rival-iq-engagement-fell-every-platform-x-48-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2025 edition (brand posts, year over year)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "social media engagement is declining" / "X engagement dropped by half"
True origin: Rival IQ — Social Media Industry Benchmark Report (2025)
Source says: Every platform saw engagement rates fall—Facebook dropped 36%, Instagram 16%, TikTok 34%, but X took the biggest hit at 48%.
Method & sample: Median engagement of brand accounts across 14 industries on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X, compared year over year.
Drift: Unit: relative change in median engagement rate, not share of users; Scope: brand accounts in Rival IQ's industry sample
Interest: Rival IQ sells social media analytics software.
Safe rephrasing: Rival IQ's benchmark of brand accounts found median engagement rates fell year over year on every platform: Facebook -36%, Instagram -16%, TikTok -34%, X -48%.
Sources: Rival IQ — Social Media Industry Benchmark Report <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>

## Snapchat had 493 million daily active users and 971 million monthly active users in Q2 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/snapchat-493-million-dau-971-million-mau-q2-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q2 2026 (quarter ended June 30, 2026)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Snapchat?"
True origin: Snap Inc. — Snap Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results (Aug. 3, 2026) (2026)
Source says: We remain focused on serving our 971 million monthly active users ... DAU (in millions) (1) 460 469 477 474 483 493
Method & sample: Company-reported: a DAU is a registered, logged-in user who visits at least once in a 24-hour period, averaged over the quarter.
Drift: North American DAU fell 7% year over year to 92 million while global DAU grew 5%
Interest: Company-reported figure in its own earnings release; the company sells advertising against these users.
Safe rephrasing: Snap reported 493 million average daily active users and 971 million monthly active users for Q2 2026; North American DAU was 92 million.
Sources: Snap Inc. — Q2 2026 results <https://investor.snap.com/news/news-details/2026/Snap-Inc--Announces-Second-Quarter-2026-Financial-Results/default.aspx>

## Reddit had 130.3 million daily active uniques and 514.6 million weekly active uniques in Q2 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/reddit-130-million-daily-514-million-weekly-q2-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q2 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Reddit?"
True origin: Reddit, Inc. — Reddit Reports Second Quarter 2026 Results (July 30, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Daily Active Uniques ("DAUq") increased 18% year-over-year to 130.3 million Weekly Active Uniques ("WAUq") increased 24% year-over-year to 514.6 million, crossing half a billion Revenue of $805 million grew 61% year-over
Method & sample: Company-reported unique users (logged-in and logged-out) averaged over the quarter.
Drift: Self-reported platform metric; definitions differ between companies, so counts are not directly comparable.
Interest: Company-reported figure in its own earnings release; the company sells advertising against these users.
Safe rephrasing: Reddit reported 130.3 million daily and 514.6 million weekly active uniques for Q2 2026, with revenue of $805 million, up 61% year over year.
Sources: Reddit — Q2 2026 results <https://investor.redditinc.com/news-events/news-releases/news-details/2026/Reddit-Reports-Second-Quarter-2026-Results/default.aspx>

## Pinterest had 640 million monthly active users in Q2 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pinterest-640-million-monthly-users-q2-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q2 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many people use Pinterest?" / "Pinterest has 600 million users"
True origin: Pinterest, Inc. — Pinterest Announces Second Quarter 2026 Results (Aug. 4, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Global Monthly Active Users ("MAUs") increased 11% year over year to 640 million.
Method & sample: Company-reported global monthly active users.
Drift: Pinterest's own 'About' page still says 'over 600 million people' in one place and 640 million in another
Interest: Company-reported figure in its own earnings release; the company sells advertising against these users.
Safe rephrasing: Pinterest reported 640 million global monthly active users for Q2 2026, up 11% year over year.
Sources: Pinterest — Q2 2026 results <https://s204.q4cdn.com/369458543/files/doc_earnings/2026/q2/earnings-result/Q2-2026-Press-Release.pdf>; Pinterest Newsroom — Company <https://newsroom.pinterest.com/company/>

## Meta's ad impressions rose 14% and average price per ad rose 12% year over year in Q2 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/meta-q2-2026-ad-impressions-up-14-price-per-ad-up-12/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q2 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Meta ad prices are rising" / "Facebook CPMs up"
True origin: Meta Platforms — Meta Reports Second Quarter 2026 Results (2026)
Source says: Ad impressions – Ad impressions delivered across our Family of Apps increased by 14% year-over-year. Average price per ad – Average price per ad increased by 12% year-over-year. Revenue – Revenue was $60.80 billion, an increase of 28% year-over-year.
Method & sample: Company-reported, across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Threads.
Drift: 'Price per ad' is a global average across all formats and regions, not a CPM any advertiser will see
Interest: Company-reported figure in its own earnings release; the company sells advertising against these users.
Safe rephrasing: Meta reported that in Q2 2026 ad impressions across its apps rose 14% and average price per ad rose 12% year over year, on revenue of $60.80 billion.
Sources: Meta — Q2 2026 results <https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2026/Meta-Reports-Second-Quarter-2026-Results/default.aspx>

## LinkedIn has more than 1 billion members in more than 200 countries and territories
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/linkedin-1-billion-members/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: LinkedIn About page, checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "LinkedIn has 1 billion users"
True origin: LinkedIn — About LinkedIn (2026)
Source says: Welcome to LinkedIn, the world's largest professional network with more than 1 billion members in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide.
Method & sample: Company-reported count of registered members (accounts), not active users.
Drift: Unit: registered members, not monthly active users; LinkedIn does not publish an active-user count on this page
Interest: LinkedIn (Microsoft) sells advertising and subscriptions to these members.
Safe rephrasing: LinkedIn says it has more than 1 billion registered members in 200+ countries and territories (members, not active users).
Sources: About LinkedIn <https://about.linkedin.com/>

## YouTube Shorts averages over 200 billion daily views
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-shorts-200-billion-daily-views/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: YouTube press page, checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "YouTube Shorts gets 200 billion views a day"
True origin: YouTube — YouTube Press — YouTube by the numbers (2026)
Source says: YouTube Shorts is now averaging over 200 billion daily views
Method & sample: Company-reported; YouTube does not publish how a Shorts view is counted on this page.
Drift: Unit: views, not viewers
Interest: YouTube (Google) sells ads on Shorts.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube says Shorts averages over 200 billion daily views (views, not unique viewers).
Sources: YouTube Press <https://blog.youtube/press/>

## YouTube has been #1 in US streaming watch time for nearly three years, according to Nielsen
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-number-one-streaming-watch-time-us-nielsen/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Nielsen data as of January 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "YouTube is the most-watched streaming service on TV"
True origin: YouTube (citing Nielsen) — YouTube Press — YouTube by the numbers (2026)
Source says: YouTube has been #1 in streaming watchtime in the U.S. for nearly three years. According to Nielsen, as of January 2026.
Method & sample: Nielsen's The Gauge measures share of total TV-screen viewing in the US; this page is YouTube's summary of it.
Drift: Scope: TV-screen streaming share in Nielsen's Gauge, not all YouTube viewing on phones
Interest: YouTube is reporting a third-party measurement in its favor.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube, citing Nielsen, says it has led US streaming watch time on TV for nearly three years (as of January 2026).
Sources: YouTube Press <https://blog.youtube/press/>

## US commerce (retail) media ad revenue reached $63.4 billion in 2025, up 18% (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-commerce-media-ad-revenue-63-4-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Calendar year 2025, US
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Retail media is a $60 billion market"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (April 2026) (2026)
Source says: Commerce media advertising revenues increased by $9.7 billion to $63.4 billion in 2025, representing 18.0% year-over-year growth, down from 23.0% in the prior year.
Method & sample: PwC survey of companies selling online advertising in the US, plus public filings and estimates.
Drift: Name: IAB now says 'commerce media', which is broader than classic retail media networks
Interest: IAB is the trade body of digital ad sellers; PwC compiles the data for it.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC report US commerce media ad revenue of $63.4 billion in 2025, up 18.0% from 2024.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>

## US digital video ad revenue was $78.0 billion in 2025, the fastest-growing format (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-digital-video-ad-revenue-78-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Calendar year 2025, US
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How big is the US digital video / CTV ad market?"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (2026)
Source says: Video shows the strongest growth across the year with an increase of $15.8 billion, coming to a total of $78.0 billion in revenues.
Method & sample: PwC survey of US online ad sellers; digital video includes CTV, social video, online video and short-form video.
Drift: Scope: includes social video and CTV; not comparable with 'CTV only' estimates
Interest: IAB is the trade body of digital ad sellers; PwC compiles the data for it.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC report US digital video ad revenue (including CTV and social video) of $78.0 billion in 2025, up $15.8 billion.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>

## US display ad revenue reached $81.6 billion in 2025, up 9.8% (IAB/PwC)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/iab-display-ad-revenue-81-6-billion-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Calendar year 2025, US
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "US display advertising market size"
True origin: IAB / PwC — Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2025 (2026)
Source says: In 2025, total display revenues reached $81.6 billion, with a YoY growth of 9.8%.
Method & sample: PwC survey of US online ad sellers.
Drift: Format definitions overlap (display can be bought programmatically or on social)
Interest: IAB is the trade body of digital ad sellers; PwC compiles the data for it.
Safe rephrasing: IAB/PwC report US display ad revenue of $81.6 billion in 2025, up 9.8%.
Sources: IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report FY2025 <https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IAB_PwC_Internet_Ad_Revenue_Report_Full_Year_2025_April_2026.pdf>

## TikTok Shop sales passed $500 million over the 2025 Black Friday–Cyber Monday weekend in the US
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tiktok-shop-bfcm-2025-over-500-million/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2025 four-day BFCM weekend
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "TikTok Shop Black Friday sales"
True origin: TikTok — TikTok Newsroom (US) (2026)
Source says: During the 2025 four-day Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend, TikTok Shop's sales surpassed $500 million,
Method & sample: Company-reported; no breakdown or audit.
Drift: Scope: four-day weekend; the page does not say US-only explicitly beyond the US newsroom context
Interest: TikTok promotes its own shopping product to sellers and advertisers.
Safe rephrasing: TikTok says TikTok Shop sales passed $500 million over the four-day 2025 Black Friday–Cyber Monday weekend (company-reported).
Sources: TikTok Newsroom US <https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/>

## TikTok Shop saw more than 100 billion searches with e-commerce intent in the US in 2025
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tiktok-shop-100-billion-ecommerce-searches-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Calendar year 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People search TikTok to shop"
True origin: TikTok — TikTok Newsroom (US) (2026)
Source says: in 2025, there were more than 100 billion searches with e-commerce intent on TikTok Shop in the U.S.
Method & sample: Company-reported; 'e-commerce intent' is TikTok's own classification.
Drift: Unit: searches, not users or purchases
Interest: TikTok promotes its own shopping product.
Safe rephrasing: TikTok says there were more than 100 billion e-commerce-intent searches on TikTok Shop in the US in 2025 (its own classification).
Sources: TikTok Newsroom US <https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/>

## Under the TCPA, a person can recover $500 per violating call or text, and a court may triple it for willful violations
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tcpa-500-per-violation-treble-if-willful/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Statute text as published by Cornell LII, checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "TCPA fines are $500 to $1,500 per text"
True origin: U.S. Congress (47 U.S.C. § 227, via Cornell LII) — 47 U.S. Code § 227 – Restrictions on use of telephone equipment (2026)
Source says: an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, in
Method & sample: Statute text. The treble-damages clause lets a court raise the award to up to three times the amount ($1,500) for willful or knowing violations.
Drift: '$1,500 per text' is the maximum for willful violations at the court's discretion, not automatic
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: The TCPA lets people sue for $500 per violating call or text (or actual loss, if greater); a court may raise it up to three times for willful or knowing violations.
Sources: 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Cornell LII) <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227>

## GDPR fines can reach €20 million or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gdpr-fines-20-million-or-4-percent-turnover/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Regulation (EU) 2016/679, applicable since May 25, 2018
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "GDPR fines up to 4% of global revenue"
True origin: European Union (GDPR Art. 83) — Art. 83 GDPR – General conditions for imposing administrative fines (2016)
Source says: administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher
Method & sample: Regulation text. A lower tier (€10 million or 2%) applies to other infringements listed in Art. 83(4).
Drift: The 4% tier covers core infringements (principles, consent, data-subject rights, transfers); other breaches cap at €10M or 2%
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: Under GDPR Article 83, the most serious infringements can be fined up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher; other infringements cap at €10 million or 2%.
Sources: GDPR Art. 83 (gdpr-info.eu) <https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/>

## CCPA fines are $2,500 per violation and $7,500 per intentional violation
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ccpa-fines-2500-7500-per-violation/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: CPI-adjusted amounts effective January 1, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "CCPA penalties: $2,500 / $7,500 per violation"
True origin: California Privacy Protection Agency — Updated Monetary Thresholds in CCPA (effective Jan. 1, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Not more than $2,663 for each violation or $7,988 for each intentional violation and violations involving the personal information of consumers whom the violator has actual knowledge are under 16 years of age. Not more than $2,500 for each violation or $7,500 for each intentional
Method & sample: Agency notice of the CPI adjustment required every odd-numbered year by Civil Code § 1798.199.95(d).
Drift: Age: the $2,500/$7,500 amounts were raised to $2,663/$7,988 from Jan. 1, 2025; another adjustment is due in odd-numbered years
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: Since January 1, 2025, CCPA administrative fines are up to $2,663 per violation and $7,988 per intentional violation (or involving minors under 16), after CPI adjustment.
Sources: CPPA — Updated monetary thresholds <https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/cpi_adjustment.html>

## COPPA defines a child as an individual under the age of 13
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/coppa-child-means-under-13/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: eCFR current text (as amended Apr. 22, 2025)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "COPPA applies to kids under 13"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission (16 CFR Part 312) — Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), § 312.2 Definitions (2025)
Source says: Child means an individual under the age of 13.
Method & sample: Federal regulation text (eCFR).
Drift: Teens 13–17 are not covered by COPPA, though some state laws cover them
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC's COPPA Rule defines a child as an individual under 13; collecting their personal information online requires verifiable parental consent.
Sources: 16 CFR Part 312 (eCFR) <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-312>

## Under the FTC Endorsement Guides, 'clear and conspicuous' means a disclosure is difficult to miss and easily understandable
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-clear-and-conspicuous-means-difficult-to-miss/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: eCFR current text (2023 revision)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What does clear and conspicuous disclosure mean for influencers?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission (16 CFR Part 255) — Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, § 255.0 (2023)
Source says: "clear and conspicuous" means that a disclosure is difficult to miss ( i.e., easily noticeable) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers.
Method & sample: Federal guide text (eCFR). For video, the guides say a disclosure in both visual and audible portions is more likely to be clear and conspicuous.
Drift: Guides, not a rule: violations are pursued as deceptive practices under the FTC Act
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: The FTC's Endorsement Guides define 'clear and conspicuous' as difficult to miss and easily understandable by ordinary consumers; for video, disclosing both on screen and out loud is more likely to qualify.
Sources: 16 CFR Part 255 (eCFR) <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255>

## The EU AI Act requires deployers of AI that generates deepfakes to disclose that the content was artificially generated or manipulated
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/eu-ai-act-deepfakes-must-be-disclosed/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; Article 50 applies from Aug. 2, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "EU AI Act: AI-generated content must be labeled"
True origin: European Union (AI Act, Art. 50) — Article 50: Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems (2024)
Source says: that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content constituting a deep fake
Method & sample: Regulation text. Providers must also mark synthetic outputs in a machine-readable format so they are detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Drift: Scope: deepfakes and certain AI-generated text on public-interest matters; not every AI-assisted ad; Exceptions exist for evidently artistic, satirical or fictional work
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: Article 50 of the EU AI Act (applying from August 2, 2026) requires deployers to disclose AI-generated or manipulated deepfake image, audio or video content, and providers to mark synthetic output in machine-readable form.
Sources: EU AI Act Article 50 <https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/>; EU AI Act Article 113 (entry into application) <https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/113/>

## EU AI Act fines reach €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover for prohibited AI practices, and €15 million or 3% for most other breaches
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/eu-ai-act-fines-35-million-7-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI Act fines up to 7% of global revenue"
True origin: European Union (AI Act, Art. 99) — Article 99: Penalties (2024)
Source says: to administrative fines of up to EUR 35 000 000 or, if the offender is an undertaking, up to 7 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. ... to administrative fines of up to EUR 15 000 000 or, if the offender is an undertaking, up to 3 % of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher
Method & sample: Regulation text.
Drift: The 7% tier applies only to prohibited practices under Article 5
Interest: n/a (statute or regulation).
Safe rephrasing: The EU AI Act sets fines of up to €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover for prohibited AI practices, and up to €15 million or 3% for most other obligations.
Sources: EU AI Act Article 99 <https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/99/>

## LinkedIn posts can contain up to 3,000 characters
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/linkedin-post-3000-characters/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "LinkedIn post character limit"
True origin: LinkedIn Help — Share posts on LinkedIn (2026)
Source says: Posts can contain up to 3,000 characters.
Method & sample: Platform documentation; longer pieces go to LinkedIn articles.
Drift: The platform sets these limits itself; they change, so check the help page before building templates around them.
Interest: n/a (platform documentation).
Safe rephrasing: LinkedIn's help center says posts can contain up to 3,000 characters; longer pieces can be published as articles.
Sources: LinkedIn Help — share posts <https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a528176>

## YouTube Shorts can be up to three minutes long
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-shorts-up-to-3-minutes/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page checked Oct. 16, 2026 (three-minute Shorts launched Oct. 2024)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "YouTube Shorts max length is 60 seconds"
True origin: YouTube Help — Understand three-minute YouTube Shorts (2026)
Source says: You can now create YouTube Shorts up to three minutes in length.
Method & sample: Platform documentation; square or vertical aspect ratio required for longer Shorts.
Drift: Older guides still say Shorts are capped at 60 seconds
Interest: n/a (platform documentation).
Safe rephrasing: YouTube now allows Shorts up to three minutes long (the old limit was 60 seconds).
Sources: YouTube Help — three-minute Shorts <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/15424877>

## Google's 'good' Core Web Vitals thresholds are LCP within 2.5 seconds, INP of 200 ms or less and CLS of 0.1 or less
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/core-web-vitals-lcp-2-5s-inp-200ms-cls-0-1/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: web.dev page checked Oct. 16, 2026 (INP replaced FID in March 2024)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Core Web Vitals thresholds" / "good LCP score"
True origin: Google (web.dev) — Web Vitals (2026)
Source says: LCP should occur within 2.5 seconds of when the page first starts loading. ... pages should have a INP of 200 milliseconds or less. ... pages should maintain a CLS of 0.1. or less.
Method & sample: Google documentation; measured at the 75th percentile of page loads, split by mobile and desktop.
Drift: FID (First Input Delay) is no longer a Core Web Vital; INP replaced it
Interest: Google uses page experience signals in Search and sells performance tools.
Safe rephrasing: Google defines 'good' Core Web Vitals as LCP within 2.5 s, INP of 200 ms or less and CLS of 0.1 or less, measured at the 75th percentile of page loads.
Sources: web.dev — Web Vitals <https://web.dev/articles/vitals>

## Users spend 80% of their viewing time above the fold
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/80-percent-viewing-time-above-the-fold/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2010 eyetracking study; updated 2018
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of attention is above the fold"
True origin: Nielsen Norman Group — Scrolling and Attention (eyetracking, 2010 and 2018) (2010)
Source says: even as recently as 2010, our eyetracking studies showed that 80% of users' viewing time was spent above the fold. ... In our most recent study, users spent about 57% of their page-viewing time above the fold. 74% of the viewing time was spent in the first two screenfuls , up to 2160px.
Method & sample: NN/g eyetracking lab studies of desktop web pages (2010; repeated 2018).
Drift: Age: the 2010 figure was replaced by 57% in NN/g's later study; Scope: desktop pages in a lab
Interest: NN/g sells UX research and training.
Safe rephrasing: Nielsen Norman Group's eyetracking found 80% of viewing time above the fold in 2010 but about 57% in its later (2018) study, with 74% in the first two screenfuls.
Sources: NN/g — Scrolling and Attention <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/scrolling-and-attention/>

## People often scan web pages in an F-shaped pattern (Nielsen Norman Group eyetracking, 2006)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/nngroup-f-shaped-reading-pattern-2006/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Pattern identified 2006; revisited 2017
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Users read in an F-pattern"
True origin: Nielsen Norman Group — F-Shaped Pattern of Reading on the Web: Misunderstood, But Still Relevant (2017, reviewed 2026) (2006)
Source says: perhaps one of the most cited is the F-shaped reading pattern for web content, which we identified in 2006. Over the years, many have referred to this research, sometimes correctly, and in many other instances misinterpreting it.
Method & sample: Eyetracking studies (2006, repeated with mobile in 2017).
Drift: NN/g says the F-shape is one of several scanning patterns and is a sign of poorly formatted content, not a design goal
Interest: NN/g sells UX research and training.
Safe rephrasing: Nielsen Norman Group's eyetracking (first in 2006) found users often scan text-heavy pages in an F-shape; NN/g stresses it is one of several patterns and a symptom of hard-to-scan content.
Sources: NN/g — F-shaped pattern <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/>

## 78% of US adults subscribe to home broadband, and 16% are smartphone-only internet users (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-home-broadband-78-smartphone-only-16-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Feb. 5–June 18, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many Americans have home internet?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: 78% of U.S. adults now say they subscribe to a broadband internet service at home. ... Today, 16% of U.S. adults are "smartphone-only" internet users, meaning they own a smartphone but do not subscribe to a home broadband service.
Method & sample: National survey of 5,022 US adults (SSRS), Feb. 5–June 18, 2025; web and mail mode.
Drift: Mode change: earlier years were phone surveys, so long-run trends are not exactly comparable
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's 2025 survey found 78% of US adults subscribe to home broadband and 16% are smartphone-only internet users.
Sources: Pew — Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/>

## 98% of US adults own a cellphone; smartphone ownership is 97% among 18–29s but 78% among those 65+ (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-98-percent-own-cellphone-seniors-78-smartphone/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Feb. 5–June 18, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many seniors have smartphones?"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Mobile Fact Sheet (2025)
Source says: The vast majority of Americans – 98% – now own a cellphone of some kind. ... Ages 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Cellphone 99 99 98 95 Smartphone 97 96 90 78
Method & sample: National survey of 5,022 US adults, Feb. 5–June 18, 2025.
Drift: Total smartphone ownership is 91%; age gaps matter when targeting older audiences
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's 2025 survey found 98% of US adults own a cellphone; smartphone ownership is 97% for ages 18–29 and 78% for ages 65 and older.
Sources: Pew — Mobile Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/>

## 86% of US adults at least sometimes get news from digital devices; only 2% often get news from AI chatbots (Pew, 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-86-percent-get-news-digital-devices-2-percent-ai-chatbots/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Survey Aug. 18–24, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Do people get news from ChatGPT?" / "most Americans get news online"
True origin: Pew Research Center — News Platform Fact Sheet (2025)
Source says: (86%) say they at least sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet, including 56% who say they do so often. ... email newsletters (6%) and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT or Google Gemini (2%).
Method & sample: Pew American Trends Panel survey of US adults, Aug. 18–24, 2025.
Drift: 'Often' vs 'sometimes' are different measures; 2% is the 'often' share for AI chatbots
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: In Pew's August 2025 survey, 86% of US adults said they at least sometimes get news on digital devices (56% often), while 2% often get news from AI chatbots.
Sources: Pew — News Platform Fact Sheet <https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/>

## Mailchimp's benchmarks: e-commerce emails average a 29.81% open rate and 1.74% click rate; the all-user unsubscribe rate is 0.22%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/mailchimp-ecommerce-open-29-81-click-1-74-unsub-0-22/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Mailchimp benchmark data (page data as of late 2023)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "average ecommerce email click rate" / "average unsubscribe rate"
True origin: Mailchimp (Intuit) — Email Marketing Benchmarks and Statistics by Industry (2023)
Source says: Ecommerce 29.81% 1.74% 0.19% All Users 35.63% 2.62% 0.22% ... We only tracked campaigns that went to at least 1,000 subscribers.
Method & sample: Billions of Mailchimp campaigns where tracking was on and the user reported an industry; campaigns of 1,000+ subscribers only.
Drift: Open rates are inflated by Apple Mail Privacy Protection; click rates are the safer comparison
Interest: Mailchimp sells email marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: Mailchimp's benchmarks show e-commerce emails averaging a 29.81% open rate and 1.74% click rate (0.19% unsubscribe); across all users the unsubscribe rate is 0.22%.
Sources: Mailchimp — Email marketing benchmarks <https://mailchimp.com/resources/email-marketing-benchmarks/>

## A half-second delay caused a 20% drop in Google search traffic
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-half-second-delay-20-percent-traffic-drop/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Talk in November 2006
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google found an extra 0.5 seconds cut traffic by 20%"
True origin: Greg Linden's blog (reporting Marissa Mayer's talk at Web 2.0, Nov. 2006) — Marissa Mayer at Web 2.0 (2006)
Source says: So, Marissa ran an experiment where Google increased the number of search results to thirty. Traffic and revenue from Google searchers in the experimental group dropped by 20%. ... The page with 10 results took .4 seconds to generate. The page with 30 results took .9 seconds. Half a second delay caused a 20% drop in traffic.
Method & sample: An anecdote from a conference talk, as written up by an attendee; the test changed the number of results (10 to 30) as well as load time, so speed was not isolated.
Drift: Cause: the test also tripled the results per page; the speed effect was inferred, not isolated; Source: a blog write-up of a 2006 talk, not a published study
Interest: n/a (personal blog of a former Amazon engineer).
Safe rephrasing: In a 2006 talk, Google's Marissa Mayer described a test where showing 30 results instead of 10 (and pages loading about half a second slower) cut traffic by 20%; speed was not isolated in that test.
Sources: Greg Linden — Marissa Mayer at Web 2.0 <https://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-20.html>

## Facebook organic reach for brand pages is only 2%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/facebook-organic-reach-2-percent/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Social@Ogilvy analysis, February 2014
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Facebook organic reach is 2%" / "organic reach is dead"
True origin: Social@Ogilvy — Facebook Zero: Considering Life After the Demise of Organic Reach (March 5, 2014) (2014)
Source says: By February 2014, ... according to a ... Social@Ogilvy analysis, organic reach hovered at 6 ... percent, a decline of 49 percent from peak levels in ... October. For large pages ... with more than 500,000 Likes, organic reach hit 2
Method & sample: Social@Ogilvy analysis of 100+ Facebook brand pages worldwide (20+ with more than 500,000 likes), October 2013–February 2014.
Drift: Scope: 2% was for pages with 500k+ likes; the overall average was about 6%; Age: February 2014 data
Interest: Ogilvy sells paid social media services.
Safe rephrasing: A 2014 Social@Ogilvy analysis found Facebook organic reach for brand posts around 6%, and about 2% for pages with more than 500,000 likes; it is old data.
Sources: Social@Ogilvy — Facebook Zero (2014) <https://www.techenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Facebook-Zero-a-Social@Ogilvy-White-Paper.pdf>

## A product with five reviews is 270% more likely to be purchased than one with no reviews
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/products-with-5-reviews-270-percent-more-likely-purchased/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2017 report
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Reviews increase conversions by 270%"
True origin: Spiegel Research Center, Northwestern University (with PowerReviews) — How Online Reviews Influence Sales (2017) (2017)
Source says: The purchase likelihood for a product with five reviews is 270% greater than the purchase likelihood of a product with no reviews. ... when reviews were displayed for a lower-priced product, the conversion rate increased 190%. However, for a higher-priced product, the conversion rate increased 380%.
Method & sample: Analysis of e-commerce review and purchase data supplied by PowerReviews, by Northwestern's Spiegel Research Center; sample details are in the full report, not on this page.
Drift: Often generalized to 'reviews increase conversion 270%'; the figure compares five reviews with zero reviews; Data partner PowerReviews sells review software
Interest: PowerReviews, which supplied the data, sells ratings and reviews software.
Safe rephrasing: Northwestern's Spiegel Research Center (2017, PowerReviews data) found products with five reviews were 270% more likely to be purchased than products with none; gains flatten after the first five.
Sources: Spiegel Research Center — How Online Reviews Influence Sales <https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/>

## 95% of purchase decisions are made in the subconscious mind (Harvard's Gerald Zaltman)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/95-percent-purchase-decisions-subconscious/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2003 interview about the book How Customers Think
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "95% of buying decisions are subconscious"
True origin: HBS Working Knowledge (interview with Gerald Zaltman) — The Subconscious Mind of the Consumer (And How To Reach It) (Jan. 13, 2003) (2003)
Source says: Harvard Business School professor Gerald Zaltman says that 95 percent of our purchase decision making takes place in the subconscious mind. ... You state that 95 percent of all cognition occurs in the subconscious mind.
Method & sample: A figure stated in a book and interview; no study measuring 95% of purchase decisions is cited.
Drift: Type: a rough estimate about cognition in general became a precise stat about purchases; No experiment or survey behind the number
Interest: n/a (academic interview promoting a book).
Safe rephrasing: Harvard's Gerald Zaltman has estimated that about 95% of thinking happens below conscious awareness; it is an expert estimate, not a measured share of purchase decisions.
Sources: HBS Working Knowledge — Zaltman interview (2003) <https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/the-subconscious-mind-of-the-consumer-and-how-to-reach-it>

## A one-star increase in Yelp rating leads to a 5–9% increase in restaurant revenue (Luca, HBS)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/yelp-one-star-increase-5-9-percent-revenue/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Working paper using Seattle restaurant data, 2003–2009
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "One extra Yelp star = 5–9% more revenue"
True origin: Harvard Business School (Michael Luca) — Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com (working paper, 2011/2016) (2016)
Source says: (1) a one-star increase in Yelp rating leads to a 5-9 percent increase in revenue, (2) this effect is driven by independent restaurants; ratings do not affect restaurants with chain affiliation
Method & sample: Regression discontinuity on Yelp's rounding thresholds using Washington State restaurant revenue data.
Drift: Scope: independent restaurants in Seattle; no effect for chains
Interest: n/a (academic research).
Safe rephrasing: Michael Luca's HBS study found a one-star increase in Yelp rating raised revenue 5–9% for independent Seattle restaurants, with no effect for chains.
Sources: HBS — Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: Yelp <https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=41233>

## Klarna's AI assistant did the work of 700 full-time customer service agents in its first month
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/klarna-ai-assistant-work-of-700-agents/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: February 2024 (first month live)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Klarna replaced 700 agents with AI"
True origin: Klarna — Klarna AI assistant handles two-thirds of customer service chats in its first month (Feb. 27, 2024) (2024)
Source says: The AI assistant has had 2.3 million conversations, two-thirds of Klarna's customer service chats It is doing the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents
Method & sample: Company press release; 'equivalent work' is Klarna's own estimate.
Drift: 'Equivalent work of 700 agents' is often retold as '700 people were fired'; Klarna later said it would rehire human agents for quality
Interest: Klarna (and its AI partner) promote the result.
Safe rephrasing: Klarna said in February 2024 that its AI assistant handled 2.3 million chats (two-thirds of customer service chats) in its first month, the work it estimated equal to 700 full-time agents.
Sources: Klarna press release (2024) <https://www.klarna.com/international/press/klarna-ai-assistant-handles-two-thirds-of-customer-service-chats-in-its-first-month/>

## 75% of knowledge workers use AI at work (Microsoft and LinkedIn, 2024)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/75-percent-knowledge-workers-use-ai-microsoft-2024/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey early 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "3 in 4 workers use AI"
True origin: Microsoft & LinkedIn — 2024 Work Trend Index: AI at Work Is Here. Now Comes the Hard Part (May 8, 2024) (2024)
Source says: 75% of knowledge workers use AI at work today, and 46% of users started using it less than six months ago.
Method & sample: Survey of 31,000 people in 31 countries plus LinkedIn and Microsoft 365 signals (per the report).
Drift: Scope: knowledge workers in 31 countries, not all workers; Age: early-2024 data; Pew found 16% of US workers do some work with AI
Interest: Microsoft and LinkedIn sell AI products (Copilot).
Safe rephrasing: Microsoft and LinkedIn's 2024 Work Trend Index reported that 75% of knowledge workers surveyed in 31 countries used AI at work; it is 2024 data from AI vendors.
Sources: Microsoft Work Trend Index 2024 <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/ai-at-work-is-here-now-comes-the-hard-part>

## Google says appropriate use of AI-generated content is not against its Search guidelines; using AI to manipulate rankings is spam
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ai-content-not-against-search-guidelines/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published Feb. 8, 2023; page read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Does Google penalize AI-generated content?"
True origin: Google Search Central Blog — Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content (Feb. 8, 2023) (2023)
Source says: Appropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines. This means that it is not used to generate content primarily to manipulate search rankings, which is against our spam policies.
Method & sample: Official Google Search guidance.
Drift: None — the test is purpose and quality, not whether AI was used
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google's Search Central guidance (Feb. 2023) says appropriate use of AI is not against its guidelines, but using automation primarily to manipulate rankings violates its spam policies.
Sources: Google Search Central — Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content <https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content>

## YouTube requires creators to disclose AI-generated or altered content that seems realistic
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-requires-disclosure-of-realistic-ai-content/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page as read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Do I have to label AI videos on YouTube?"
True origin: YouTube Help (Google) — Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content (2024)
Source says: We require creators to disclose AI-generated or altered content that seems realistic. Creators can make this disclosure during the upload process.
Method & sample: Official platform policy.
Drift: None — non-realistic content and minor edits don't need disclosure
Interest: YouTube sets and enforces the policy.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube's policy requires creators to disclose, at upload, AI-generated or altered content that seems realistic.
Sources: YouTube Help — Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491?hl=en>

## The U.S. Copyright Office says AI outputs are copyrightable only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/us-copyright-office-ai-output-needs-human-author/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Part 2 released Jan. 29, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Can you copyright AI-generated content?"
True origin: U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability (Jan. 29, 2025) (2025)
Source says: It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements.
Method & sample: Official agency report and press release.
Drift: None — human-authored parts, arrangements or modifications of AI output can be protected
Interest: n/a (U.S. federal agency).
Safe rephrasing: The U.S. Copyright Office concluded in January 2025 that generative-AI output is protected only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements, such as human creative arrangement or modification.
Sources: U.S. Copyright Office — Part 2 release (NewsNet 1060) <https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html>; U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright and AI hub <https://www.copyright.gov/ai/>

## AI will replace 40% of jobs worldwide (IMF)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/imf-ai-will-replace-40-percent-of-jobs/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published Jan. 14, 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The IMF says AI will replace 40% of jobs"
True origin: International Monetary Fund (IMF Blog, Kristalina Georgieva) — AI Will Transform the Global Economy. Let's Make Sure It Benefits Humanity. (Jan. 14, 2024) (2024)
Source says: The findings are striking: almost 40 percent of global employment is exposed to AI. ... Roughly half the exposed jobs may benefit from AI integration, enhancing productivity.
Method & sample: IMF staff analysis of AI exposure across occupations; exposure is not replacement.
Drift: Wording: 'exposed to AI' became 'replaced by AI'; Detail: about half of exposed jobs may benefit from AI
Interest: n/a (intergovernmental organization). The blog states its views are the authors', not the IMF Board's.
Safe rephrasing: An IMF staff analysis (Jan. 2024) found almost 40% of global employment is exposed to AI, about 60% in advanced economies, and about half of exposed jobs may benefit rather than be replaced.
Sources: IMF Blog — AI Will Transform the Global Economy (2024) <https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/14/ai-will-transform-the-global-economy-lets-make-sure-it-benefits-humanity>

## AI will replace 300 million jobs (Goldman Sachs)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/goldman-ai-will-replace-300-million-jobs/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published Apr. 5, 2023
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Goldman Sachs: AI will take 300 million jobs"
True origin: Goldman Sachs Research (Joseph Briggs and Devesh Kodnani) — Generative AI could raise global GDP by 7% (Apr. 5, 2023) (2023)
Source says: Shifts in workflows triggered by these advances could expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation, Briggs and Kodnani write. ... But not all that automated work will translate into layoffs, the report says.
Method & sample: Economist estimate based on task content of over 900 occupations.
Drift: Wording: 'expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation' became 'replace 300 million jobs'; Date: 2023 estimate
Interest: Goldman Sachs advises and invests in AI and technology companies.
Safe rephrasing: Goldman Sachs economists estimated in 2023 that generative AI could expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation, while noting that not all automated work becomes layoffs.
Sources: Goldman Sachs — Generative AI could raise global GDP by 7% <https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent>

## The WEF's Future of Jobs Report 2025 projects 170 million jobs created and 92 million displaced by 2030, a net gain of 78 million
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wef-170-million-jobs-created-92-million-displaced-by-2030/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published Jan. 2025; projection to 2030
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many jobs will AI create or destroy by 2030?"
True origin: World Economic Forum — Future of Jobs Report 2025 (press release, Jan. 8, 2025) (2025)
Source says: job disruption will equate to 22% of jobs by 2030, with 170 million new roles set to be created and 92 million displaced, resulting in a net increase of 78 million jobs.
Method & sample: Survey of over 1,000 employers in 22 industries and 55 economies; covers all macrotrends, not only AI.
Drift: Scope: drivers include technology, demographics, the green transition and economics, not AI alone
Interest: The WEF convenes business and government leaders; respondents are employers.
Safe rephrasing: The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025, based on a survey of over 1,000 employers, projects 170 million jobs created and 92 million displaced by 2030 across all trends, not only AI.
Sources: World Economic Forum — Future of Jobs Report 2025 press release <https://www.weforum.org/press/2025/01/future-of-jobs-report-2025-78-million-new-job-opportunities-by-2030-but-urgent-upskilling-needed-to-prepare-workforces/>

## 78% of organizations reported using AI in 2024, up from 55% in 2023 (Stanford AI Index 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/stanford-ai-index-78-percent-organizations-used-ai-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2024 data; report published 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What percentage of companies use AI?"
True origin: Stanford HAI — AI Index Report 2025 (2025)
Source says: AI business usage is also accelerating: 78% of organizations reported using AI in 2024, up from 55% the year before.
Method & sample: The AI Index compiles third-party data; the summary page doesn't name the source of this figure.
Drift: Source: a secondary compilation; check the underlying survey before relying on it
Interest: n/a (academic institute).
Safe rephrasing: Stanford's AI Index 2025 reported that 78% of organizations reported using AI in 2024, up from 55% the year before.
Sources: Stanford HAI — AI Index Report 2025 <https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report>

## Traffic to U.S. retail sites from generative AI sources jumped 1,200% (Adobe)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/adobe-genai-traffic-to-retail-sites-up-1200-percent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: February 2025 vs July 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI referral traffic is up 1,200%"
True origin: Adobe Analytics — Traffic to U.S. retail websites from Generative AI sources jumps 1,200 percent (Mar. 17, 2025) (2025)
Source says: In February 2025, traffic from generative AI sources increased by 1,200 percent compared to July 2024. ... And while generative AI traffic remains modest compared to other channels, such as paid search or email
Method & sample: Analysis of more than 1 trillion visits to U.S. retail sites in Adobe Analytics, plus a survey of 5,000 U.S. consumers.
Drift: Base: growth from a small base; still modest vs paid search or email; Period: seven months, not a year
Interest: Adobe sells analytics and marketing software.
Safe rephrasing: Adobe Analytics reported that traffic to U.S. retail sites from generative-AI sources grew 1,200% from July 2024 to February 2025, while noting it remained modest compared with channels like paid search and email.
Sources: Adobe Blog — Traffic from Generative AI sources jumps 1,200 percent <https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2025/03/17/adobe-analytics-traffic-to-us-retail-websites-from-generative-ai-sources-jumps-1200-percent>

## More articles are now created by AI than by humans (Graphite)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/more-ai-generated-articles-than-human-graphite/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Data to 2025; Graphite has published a revised version with figures 3.3 points lower on average
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Over half of new articles online are AI-generated"
True origin: Graphite (SEO agency) — More Articles Are Now Created by AI Than Humans (2025)
Source says: We find that in November 2024, the quantity of AI-generated articles being published on the web surpassed the quantity of human-written articles. ... However, the proportion of AI-generated articles has plateaued since May 2024.
Method & sample: Random sample of English-language article URLs from Common Crawl (published Jan. 2020–May 2025), classified with Surfer's AI detector (AI if over 50% of the text is predicted AI-generated); the detector flagged 4.2% of pre-ChatGPT articles as AI.
Drift: Method: depends on an AI detector with its own error rate; Detail: the share plateaued from May 2024
Interest: Graphite sells SEO and content services.
Safe rephrasing: Graphite's detector-based analysis found AI-generated articles overtook human-written ones in November 2024, with the share plateauing since; the method depends on an AI-detection tool's accuracy.
Sources: Graphite — More Articles Are Now Created by AI Than Humans <https://graphite.io/five-percent/more-articles-are-now-created-by-ai-than-humans>

## John Wanamaker said: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half"
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wanamaker-half-my-advertising-is-wasted/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Mar. 17, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Half my advertising is wasted, I just don't know which half" — John Wanamaker
True origin: Quote Investigator — One-Half the Money I Spend for Advertising Is Wasted (Apr. 11, 2022; updated Mar. 17, 2025) (1919 (earliest attribution))
Source says: QI has been unable to find a direct citation to a written or spoken instance from Wannamaker; hence, this ascription remains uncertain. Nevertheless, Wannamaker is currently the leading candidate.
Method & sample: Quotation research: the earliest full attribution is a 1919 speech by Rev. Roy L. Smith; partial versions appear from 1890.
Drift: Attribution: secondhand (1919); also credited to Lord Leverhulme, Wrigley and others
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: The line is usually credited to John Wanamaker, but the earliest attribution is secondhand (a 1919 speech) and no direct record from him has been found; say 'often attributed to Wanamaker'.
Sources: Quote Investigator — One-Half the Money I Spend for Advertising Is Wasted <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/04/11/advertising/>

## Henry Ford said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses"
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/henry-ford-faster-horses-quote/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Mar. 6, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" — Henry Ford
True origin: Quote Investigator — My Customers Would Have Asked For a Faster Horse (July 28, 2011; updated Mar. 6, 2025) (2001 (earliest Ford attribution))
Source says: The earliest ascription to Ford that QI has located appeared in a letter sent to the UK publication Marketing Week in 2001
Method & sample: Quotation research: the earliest linkage to Ford is a 1999 cruise-industry interview that did not quote him; the earliest direct ascription is a 2001 letter to Marketing Week.
Drift: Attribution: first credited to Ford in 2001, with no earlier source
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: There's no evidence Henry Ford said the 'faster horses' line; the earliest attribution to him found by Quote Investigator is from 2001. Present it as an anonymous saying.
Sources: Quote Investigator — My Customers Would Have Asked For a Faster Horse <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/28/ford-faster-horse/>

## Peter Drucker said: "Culture eats strategy for breakfast"
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/drucker-culture-eats-strategy-for-breakfast/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Apr. 17, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" — Peter Drucker
True origin: Quote Investigator — Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast (May 23, 2017; updated Apr. 17, 2025) (2000 (earliest known use))
Source says: Peter Drucker who died in 2005 was not mentioned in the earliest citations found by QI . His name was attached to the saying by 2011.
Method & sample: Quotation research: the earliest close match is a 2000 trade-journal article citing a March 2000 Giga Information Group headline.
Drift: Attribution: Drucker's name attached by 2011, after his death
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: 'Culture eats strategy for breakfast' is commonly credited to Peter Drucker, but the earliest known uses (2000) don't mention him; present it as a management saying.
Sources: Quote Investigator — Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/05/23/culture-eats/>

## "If you're not paying for it, you're the product" was coined in a 2010 online comment
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/if-youre-not-paying-youre-the-product-origin/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Oct. 28, 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product"
True origin: Quote Investigator — You're Not the Customer; You're the Product (July 16, 2017; updated Oct. 28, 2024) (1973 (precursor))
Source says: In conclusion, this saying evolved over time. Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman crafted an interesting precursor in 1973. A strong match was written by Tom Johnson in 2001. An extended statement was written by Andrew Lewis in 2010.
Method & sample: Quotation research.
Drift: Origin: the 2010 MetaFilter comment (blue_beetle / Andrew Lewis) popularized it; the idea dates to a 1973 video about TV advertising
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: The saying evolved over decades: a 1973 video by Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman said 'You are the product of t.v.', and a 2010 MetaFilter comment gave the popular 'If you are not paying for it...' wording.
Sources: Quote Investigator — You're Not the Customer; You're the Product <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/16/product/>

## Users often leave web pages in 10–20 seconds (Nielsen Norman Group)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/users-leave-web-pages-in-10-20-seconds-nngroup/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Published Sept. 11, 2011
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "You have 10 seconds to grab a visitor"
True origin: Nielsen Norman Group (Jakob Nielsen) — How Long Do Users Stay on Web Pages? (Sept. 11, 2011) (2011)
Source says: Users often leave Web pages in 10–20 seconds, but pages with a clear value proposition can hold people's
Method & sample: Summary of Microsoft Research (Chao Liu et al.) analysis of more than 2 billion dwell times on 205,873 pages from a browser plug-in.
Drift: Date: 2011
Interest: NN/g sells UX training and consulting.
Safe rephrasing: Nielsen Norman Group (2011) found users often leave web pages within 10–20 seconds, but pages with a clear value proposition hold attention much longer.
Sources: Nielsen Norman Group — How Long Do Users Stay on Web Pages? <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-web-pages/>

## Interaction to Next Paint (INP) replaced First Input Delay (FID) as a Core Web Vital on March 12, 2024
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/inp-replaced-fid-core-web-vitals-march-12-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Effective Mar. 12, 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Is FID still a Core Web Vital?"
True origin: Google Search Central Blog — Introducing INP to Core Web Vitals (May 2023; updated Mar. 12, 2024) (2024)
Source says: Update on March 12, 2024 : Interaction to Next Paint (INP) has replaced FID as a part of Core Web Vitals.
Method & sample: Official Google announcement.
Drift: None
Interest: Google operates Chrome and Search.
Safe rephrasing: INP replaced FID as Google's Core Web Vitals responsiveness metric on March 12, 2024.
Sources: Google Search Central — Introducing INP to Core Web Vitals <https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/05/introducing-inp>

## Google Chrome is phasing out third-party cookies
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-chrome-phasing-out-third-party-cookies/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Oct. 17, 2025 update
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Third-party cookies are going away in Chrome"
True origin: Google Privacy Sandbox (Anthony Chavez) — Update on Plans for Privacy Sandbox Technologies (Oct. 17, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Since announcing that Chrome will maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome ... we've decided to retire the following Privacy Sandbox technologies: Attribution Reporting API (Chrome and Android), IP Protection , On-Device Personalization , Private Aggregation (including Shared Storage ), Protected Audience (Chrome and Android), Protected App Signals
Method & sample: Official Google update.
Drift: Date: plans to deprecate cookies were dropped; Chrome keeps third-party cookie choice and is retiring most Privacy Sandbox APIs
Interest: Google operates Chrome and sells ads.
Safe rephrasing: Google dropped its plan to phase out third-party cookies: Chrome keeps its current approach to cookie choice, and in October 2025 Google said it would retire most Privacy Sandbox technologies.
Sources: Privacy Sandbox — Update on Plans for Privacy Sandbox Technologies <https://privacysandbox.com/news/update-on-plans-for-privacy-sandbox-technologies/>

## YouTube paid more than $100 billion to creators, artists and media companies from January 2021 to December 2024
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-paid-100-billion-to-creators-2021-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Jan. 2021–Dec. 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How much has YouTube paid creators?"
True origin: YouTube (YouTube for Artists) — How Artists Make Money on YouTube (2025)
Source says: $100B YouTube paid to creators, artists and media companies in the last four years* (Jan 2021 – Dec 2024)
Method & sample: Company-reported total; includes media companies and music rights holders, not only independent creators.
Drift: Scope: includes media companies and the music industry
Interest: YouTube promotes its platform to creators.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube says it paid more than $100 billion to creators, artists and media companies from January 2021 to December 2024; the total includes media companies, not just independent creators.
Sources: YouTube for Artists — How Artists Make Money on YouTube <https://artists.youtube/intl/en-GB_ALL/resources/monetization/>; YouTube Blog — 2024 letter from CEO Neal Mohan ($70 billion over three years) <https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/2024-letter-from-neal/>

## YouTube Shorts averaged over 70 billion daily views, and more than 3 million channels were in the YouTube Partner Program (2024)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-shorts-70-billion-daily-views-2024/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Early 2024 (CEO's 2024 letter)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many views do YouTube Shorts get per day?"
True origin: YouTube (CEO Neal Mohan) — Letter from the YouTube CEO: 4 Big bets for 2024 (2024)
Source says: Today more than 3 million channels are in the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) ... Shorts is averaging over 70 billion daily views
Method & sample: Company-reported figures.
Drift: Age: early-2024 figure; YouTube's press page now says Shorts averages over 200 billion daily views
Interest: YouTube promotes its own platform.
Safe rephrasing: In early 2024 YouTube said Shorts averaged over 70 billion daily views; its current press page says over 200 billion, so use the newer figure with its date.
Sources: YouTube Blog — Letter from the YouTube CEO: 4 Big bets for 2024 <https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/2024-letter-from-neal/>

## YouTube has more than 1 billion monthly active viewers of podcast content (as of January 2025)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/youtube-1-billion-monthly-podcast-viewers/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: January 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Is YouTube the biggest podcast platform?"
True origin: YouTube Blog (Tim Katz) — Drop the mic: Celebrating 1 billion monthly podcast users on YouTube (Feb. 26, 2025) (2025)
Source says: Today, we're announcing that there are more than 1 billion monthly active viewers of podcast content on YouTube . 1 ... 1. As of January 2025
Method & sample: Company-reported metric; YouTube's definition of 'podcast content'.
Drift: Definition: YouTube decides what counts as podcast content
Interest: YouTube promotes its own platform.
Safe rephrasing: YouTube said in February 2025 that more than 1 billion people a month watched podcast content on YouTube, as of January 2025, using its own definition of podcasts.
Sources: YouTube Blog — 1 billion monthly podcast users <https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/1-billion-monthly-podcast-users/>

## Chrome had 66.36% of worldwide browser market share in September 2026, ahead of Safari at 18.27% (StatCounter)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-chrome-66-percent-browser-share-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026 (monthly data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What is Chrome's browser market share?"
True origin: StatCounter Global Stats — Browser Market Share Worldwide (September 2026) (2026)
Source says: Browser Market Share Worldwide - September 2026 Chrome 66.36 % Safari 18.27 % Edge 6.04 % Firefox 2.8 % Samsung Internet 2.31 % Opera 1.77 %
Method & sample: Page views across sites in StatCounter's network, all platforms.
Drift: Metric: page views in StatCounter's network, not users
Interest: StatCounter sells web analytics.
Safe rephrasing: StatCounter's September 2026 data put Chrome at 66.36% of worldwide browser page views, followed by Safari (18.27%) and Edge (6.04%).
Sources: StatCounter — Browser Market Share Worldwide <https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share>

## Facebook sent 71.23% of worldwide social media referral traffic in September 2026 (StatCounter)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-facebook-71-percent-social-referrals-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026 (monthly data)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Which social network drives the most website traffic?"
True origin: StatCounter Global Stats — Social Media Stats Worldwide (September 2026) (2026)
Source says: Social Media Stats Worldwide - September 2026 Facebook 71.23 % Twitter 7.44 % Instagram 7.43 % YouTube 7.26 % Pinterest 3.39 % reddit 2.43 %
Method & sample: Share of referrals from social sites to sites in StatCounter's network.
Drift: Metric: referral clicks to websites, not usage or time spent; in-app activity that never links out isn't counted
Interest: StatCounter sells web analytics.
Safe rephrasing: StatCounter's September 2026 data showed Facebook sending 71.23% of social-media referral traffic to websites in its network, far ahead of X/Twitter (7.44%) and Instagram (7.43%); this measures referrals, not usage.
Sources: StatCounter — Social Media Stats Worldwide <https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats>

## Perfect 5-star ratings sell best
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/perfect-5-star-ratings-sell-best/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Findings first published 2017
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "You need a 5.0 rating to convert"
True origin: Medill Spiegel Research Center, Northwestern University — How Online Reviews Influence Sales (first published 2017) (2017)
Source says: Across product categories, we found that purchase likelihood typically peaks at ratings in the 4.0 – 4.7 range, and then begins to decrease as ratings approach 5.0.
Method & sample: Academic research center analysis of retailer review data.
Drift: Direction: research found purchase likelihood falls as ratings approach 5.0
Interest: Academic center; works with industry research partners.
Safe rephrasing: Spiegel Research Center found purchase likelihood typically peaks at average ratings of 4.0–4.7 and declines as ratings approach a perfect 5.0.
Sources: Medill Spiegel Research Center — How Online Reviews Influence Sales <https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/>

## Americans check their phones 352 times a day (Asurion, 2022)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/americans-check-phones-352-times-a-day-asurion-2022/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey March 2–9, 2022
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People check their phones 352 times a day"
True origin: Asurion — Americans Now Check Their Phones 352 Times Per Day (2022)
Source says: reaching for their device an average of 352 times a day – once every two minutes and 43 seconds –according to new research by tech care company Asurion *. ... *Asurion-sponsored survey by Market Research Firm Dynata conducted March 2–9, 2022, of 1,965 U.S. adults (18+) representative of the U.S. population.
Method & sample: Asurion-sponsored online survey of 1,965 U.S. adults by Dynata; self-reported.
Drift: Method: self-reported estimate, not device logs; Date: 2022
Interest: Asurion sells phone insurance and repair.
Safe rephrasing: An Asurion-sponsored 2022 survey of 1,965 U.S. adults estimated people check their phones 352 times a day; it's self-reported, from a company that sells phone protection.
Sources: Asurion — Americans Now Check Their Phones 352 Times Per Day <https://www.asurion.com/connect/news/tech-usage/>

## The FTC says there is no AI exemption from consumer-protection law (Operation AI Comply, Sept. 2024)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ftc-no-ai-exemption-operation-ai-comply/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Announced Sept. 25, 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Are AI marketing claims regulated by the FTC?"
True origin: Federal Trade Commission — FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes (Sept. 25, 2024) (2024)
Source says: "Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal," said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. "The FTC's enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books.
Method & sample: Five enforcement actions, including DoNotPay ('robot lawyer', $193,000 settlement) and Rytr (AI review generator).
Drift: None — the cases include AI-generated fake reviews and unsupported AI capability claims
Interest: n/a (U.S. federal agency).
Safe rephrasing: In Operation AI Comply (Sept. 2024), the FTC brought five cases over deceptive AI claims and AI-generated fake reviews, stating there is no AI exemption from existing law.
Sources: FTC — Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes>

## Google says it has no preferred word count for content
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-has-no-preferred-word-count/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Documentation read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "How many words should a blog post be for SEO?" / "Google prefers long content"
True origin: Google Search Central — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content (Current documentation)
Source says: Are you writing to a particular word count because you've heard or read that Google has a preferred word count? (No, we don't.)
Method & sample: Official Google Search documentation.
Drift: None
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google's own guidance says it has no preferred word count; length should follow what the topic and reader need.
Sources: Google Search Central — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content>

## Google says E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-e-e-a-t-not-a-specific-ranking-factor/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Documentation read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?"
True origin: Google Search Central — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content (Current documentation)
Source says: While E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful.
Method & sample: Official Google Search documentation.
Drift: None — Google says its systems give more weight to strong E-E-A-T on topics affecting health, finances, safety or well-being
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google says E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trust) isn't a single ranking factor, but its systems use a mix of signals that identify content with good E-E-A-T.
Sources: Google Search Central — Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content>

## Google doesn't use the keywords meta tag in web search ranking
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-does-not-use-keywords-meta-tag/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Published Sept. 21, 2009; Google's current note says it still doesn't support the tag
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Do meta keywords help SEO?"
True origin: Google Search Central Blog (Matt Cutts) — Google does not use the keywords meta tag in web ranking (Sept. 21, 2009) (2009)
Source says: Google doesn't use the keywords meta tag in our web search ranking. ... However Google still doesn't support the keywords meta tag.
Method & sample: Official Google statement.
Drift: None
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google has said since 2009 that it doesn't use the keywords meta tag for ranking, and its current note says it still doesn't support it.
Sources: Google Search Central Blog — keywords meta tag <https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2009/09/google-does-not-use-keywords-meta-tag>

## Title tags must be under 60 characters or Google penalizes them
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/title-tags-must-be-under-60-characters/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Documentation read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Keep title tags under 60 characters"
True origin: Google Search Central — Influencing your title links in search results (Current documentation)
Source says: While there's no limit on how long a <title> element can be, the title link is truncated in Google Search results as needed, typically to fit the device width.
Method & sample: Official Google Search documentation.
Drift: Type: a display-truncation rule of thumb presented as a hard limit or penalty
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google sets no length limit for title elements; long titles are just truncated in results to fit the device width, so ~60 characters is a display guideline, not a rule.
Sources: Google Search Central — Influencing your title links <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/title-link>

## Meta descriptions must be under 155–160 characters
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/meta-descriptions-must-be-under-160-characters/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Documentation read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Meta description max length is 160 characters"
True origin: Google Search Central — Control your snippets in search results (Current documentation)
Source says: There's no limit on how long a meta description can be, but the snippet is truncated in Google Search results as needed, typically to fit the device width.
Method & sample: Official Google Search documentation.
Drift: Type: a display-truncation rule of thumb presented as a limit
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google sets no length limit on meta descriptions; snippets are truncated to fit the device, so 155–160 characters is a display guideline only.
Sources: Google Search Central — Control your snippets in search results <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/snippet>

## Blocking Google-Extended in robots.txt doesn't affect a site's inclusion or ranking in Google Search
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-extended-does-not-affect-search-ranking/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Documentation read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Will blocking Google's AI crawler hurt my SEO?"
True origin: Google Search Central — Google's common crawlers (Google-Extended) (Current documentation)
Source says: Google-Extended is a standalone product token that web publishers can use to manage whether content Google crawls from their sites may be used for training future generations of Gemini models ... Google-Extended does not impact a site's inclusion in Google Search nor is it used as a ranking signal in Google Search.
Method & sample: Official Google documentation.
Drift: None — it controls use of content for Gemini training and grounding
Interest: Google operates Google Search.
Safe rephrasing: Google says the Google-Extended robots.txt token controls use of crawled content for Gemini training and grounding, and doesn't affect inclusion or ranking in Google Search.
Sources: Google Search Central — Google's common crawlers <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/google-common-crawlers>

## Google Universal Analytics was shut down; from the week of July 1, 2024 its data and interface are no longer accessible
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/universal-analytics-shut-down-july-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page last updated July 16, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Can I still access Universal Analytics data?"
True origin: Google Analytics Help — [UA→GA4] Google Analytics 4 has replaced Universal Analytics (last updated July 16, 2025) (2024)
Source says: Starting the week of July 1, 2024: You will not have access to any current or historical Universal Analytics data and most users will lose access to the interface and the API on this date.
Method & sample: Official Google documentation.
Drift: None
Interest: Google operates Google Analytics.
Safe rephrasing: Google Analytics 4 has replaced Universal Analytics; from the week of July 1, 2024, UA data, interface and API access were turned off.
Sources: Google Analytics Help — GA4 has replaced Universal Analytics <https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/11583528?hl=en>

## Google responsive search ads allow up to 15 headlines of 30 characters and 4 descriptions of 90 characters
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-ads-rsa-15-headlines-30-characters-4-descriptions-90/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Help page read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google Ads headline character limit"
True origin: Google Ads Help — About responsive search ads (Current documentation)
Source says: you can provide up to 15 headlines and 4 descriptions for a single responsive search ad. ... The headline fields for responsive search ads support up to 30 characters. The description fields support up to 90 characters each, and the path fields support up to 15 each.
Method & sample: Official platform documentation.
Drift: None — double-width characters (e.g., Korean, Japanese, Chinese) count as 2
Interest: Google sells the ads.
Safe rephrasing: Google Ads responsive search ads take up to 15 headlines (30 characters each) and 4 descriptions (90 characters each), plus path fields of up to 15 characters each.
Sources: Google Ads Help — About responsive search ads <https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/7684791?hl=en>

## U.S. telephone solicitations can't be made before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the recipient's local time
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/tcpa-telemarketing-quiet-hours-8am-9pm/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Regulation text read on 2026-10-16
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "What time can you send marketing texts?"
True origin: 47 CFR 64.1200 (FCC rules under the TCPA), via eCFR — 47 CFR § 64.1200(c)(1) — Delivery restrictions (Current documentation)
Source says: No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation to: ( 1 ) Any residential telephone subscriber before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location)
Method & sample: Federal regulation.
Drift: Scope: federal rule; check state telemarketing laws too
Interest: n/a (U.S. regulation).
Safe rephrasing: Under FCC rule 47 CFR 64.1200(c)(1), telephone solicitations can't be made before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the recipient's local time; check state laws as well.
Sources: eCFR — 47 CFR 64.1200 <https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-L/section-64.1200>

## The FCC's one-to-one consent rule requires lead generators to get consent for each seller separately
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/fcc-one-to-one-consent-rule-lead-generation/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Decision filed Jan. 24, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "The FCC one-to-one consent rule takes effect in 2025"
True origin: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025) (2025)
Source says: we agree with IMC that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority under the TCPA because the 2023 Order's new consent restrictions impermissibly conflict with the ordinary statutory meaning of "prior express consent." Accordingly, we grant IMC's petition for review, vacate Part III.D of the 2023 Order, and remand for further proceedings.
Method & sample: Federal appeals court opinion.
Drift: Date: the rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit before it took effect; the TCPA's prior-express-consent requirement still applies
Interest: n/a (court opinion).
Safe rephrasing: The FCC's 2023 one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on Jan. 24, 2025; the TCPA's general prior-express-consent rules still apply.
Sources: Eleventh Circuit — Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC (PDF) <https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202410277.pdf>

## Apple Mail Privacy Protection stops senders from using invisible pixels to know when an email is opened and masks the user's IP address
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/apple-mail-privacy-protection-hides-opens/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Announced June 7, 2021
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Are email open rates still accurate?"
True origin: Apple Newsroom — Apple advances its privacy leadership with iOS 15, iPadOS 15, macOS Monterey, and watchOS 8 (June 7, 2021) (Current documentation)
Source says: In the Mail app, Mail Privacy Protection stops senders from using invisible pixels to collect information about the user. The new feature helps users prevent senders from knowing when they open an email, and masks their IP address
Method & sample: Official Apple announcement.
Drift: None — open rates from Apple Mail users are unreliable as a result
Interest: Apple markets privacy features.
Safe rephrasing: Since Apple's 2021 Mail Privacy Protection, the Mail app blocks tracking pixels from revealing when users open emails and masks their IP address, which makes open rates less reliable.
Sources: Apple Newsroom — iOS 15 privacy features (June 7, 2021) <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/06/apple-advances-its-privacy-leadership-with-ios-15-ipados-15-macos-monterey-and-watchos-8/>

## Since July 1, 2025, Cloudflare blocks AI crawlers from accessing content without permission by default
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cloudflare-blocks-ai-crawlers-by-default-july-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Announced July 1, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Does Cloudflare block AI bots?"
True origin: Cloudflare (press release) — Cloudflare Just Changed How AI Crawlers Scrape the Internet-at-Large (July 1, 2025) (2025)
Source says: today announced it is now the first Internet infrastructure provider to block AI crawlers accessing content without permission or compensation, by default. Starting today, website owners can choose if they want AI crawlers to access their content
Method & sample: Company announcement.
Drift: Scope: Cloudflare-protected sites; owners can choose to allow AI crawlers
Interest: Cloudflare sells the tools and a pay-per-crawl option.
Safe rephrasing: Cloudflare announced on July 1, 2025 that it blocks AI crawlers from accessing content without permission by default, letting site owners choose whether to allow them.
Sources: Cloudflare — press release, July 1, 2025 <https://www.cloudflare.com/press/press-releases/2025/cloudflare-just-changed-how-ai-crawlers-scrape-the-internet-at-large/>

## AI platforms crawl far more than they refer: Anthropic made about 70,900 page requests per referral (Cloudflare)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/anthropic-70900-crawls-per-referral-cloudflare/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Example period June 19–26, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI bots crawl thousands of pages for every visitor they send"
True origin: Cloudflare Blog — The crawl before the fall… of referrals: understanding AI's impact on content providers (2025) (2025)
Source says: the ratios range from Anthropic's 70,900:1 down to Mistral's 0.1:1. This means that Anthropic's AI platform Claude made nearly 71,000 HTML page requests for every HTML page referral
Method & sample: Cloudflare network data: HTML page requests by each platform's crawlers vs referrals from its hostnames, normalized to one referral.
Drift: Date: a one-week example; ratios change over time; Scope: Cloudflare's network only
Interest: Cloudflare sells bot management and pay-per-crawl tools.
Safe rephrasing: Cloudflare's data for June 19–26, 2025 showed crawl-to-referral ratios ranging from about 70,900:1 for Anthropic down to 0.1:1 for Mistral; ratios vary week to week.
Sources: Cloudflare Blog — AI crawl-to-referral ratios <https://blog.cloudflare.com/ai-search-crawl-refer-ratio-on-radar/>

## Google tested 41 shades of blue to choose a link color
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-tested-41-shades-of-blue/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Blog post Mar. 20, 2009
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google tested 41 shades of blue"
True origin: Douglas Bowman (Google's first visual designer), stopdesign.com — Goodbye, Google (Mar. 20, 2009) (2009)
Source says: Yes, it's true that a team at Google couldn't decide between two blues, so they're testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better.
Method & sample: First-hand account in a resignation blog post; no published test results.
Drift: Source: a critical first-person anecdote; results and revenue impact were not published in this source
Interest: Personal blog of a departing employee criticizing data-driven design.
Safe rephrasing: Former Google designer Douglas Bowman wrote in 2009 that a Google team tested 41 shades of blue to see which performed better; he cited it as an example of over-reliance on data.
Sources: stopdesign.com — Goodbye, Google <https://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html>

## Theodore Levitt said: "People don't want a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch hole"
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/levitt-people-want-quarter-inch-hole-not-drill/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Apr. 6, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People don't want a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch hole" — Theodore Levitt
True origin: Quote Investigator — No One Wants a Drill. What They Want Is the Hole (Mar. 23, 2019; updated Apr. 6, 2025) (1942 (earliest match))
Source says: Clayton M. Christensen ascribed the saying to Theodore Levitt, but Levitt ascribed the remark to McGivena.
Method & sample: Quotation research: earliest match is a 1942 insurance advertisement; a 1947 book credited Leo McGivena.
Drift: Attribution: Levitt quoted it in 1969 and credited Leo McGivena; Christensen later credited Levitt
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: The 'quarter-inch hole' line is usually credited to Theodore Levitt, but Levitt himself credited Leo McGivena, and the earliest known version is a 1942 ad.
Sources: Quote Investigator — No One Wants a Drill <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/03/23/drill/>

## Maya Angelou said: "People will forget what you said... but people will never forget how you made them feel"
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/maya-angelou-people-will-never-forget-how-you-made-them-feel/
Verdict: misquoted (Primary source found, but the way it is quoted changes the subject, metric, population or precision.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Research updated Jan. 24, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People will never forget how you made them feel" — Maya Angelou
True origin: Quote Investigator — They May Forget What You Said, But They Will Never Forget How You Made Them Feel (Apr. 6, 2014; updated Jan. 24, 2025) (1971 (earliest known))
Source says: In conclusion, based on current evidence QI suggests that Carl W. Buehner can be credited with this adage. Many people have used the saying without ascription in the years after 1971. The attribution to Maya Angelou is unsupported at this time.
Method & sample: Quotation research: earliest instance is in Richard Evans' Quote Book (1971), credited to Carl W. Buehner.
Drift: Attribution: reassigned to Angelou in a chain message by 2003
Interest: Quote Investigator is an independent quotation-research site run by Garson O'Toole; no commercial interest in the quote.
Safe rephrasing: The 'never forget how you made them feel' line is often credited to Maya Angelou, but the earliest known source (1971) credits Carl W. Buehner; say 'often attributed to Maya Angelou'.
Sources: Quote Investigator — They May Forget What You Said <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/06/they-feel/>

## Only 28% of Americans trust the mass media a great deal or a fair amount
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gallup-trust-in-media-28-percent-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Telephone poll, Sept. 2–16, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Trust in media is at a record low of 28%"
True origin: Gallup — Trust in Media at New Low of 28% in U.S. (Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: The latest 28% confidence reading, from a Sept. 2-16 poll, marks the first time the measure has fallen below 30%. ... Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted by ReconMR Sept. 2-16, 2025, with a random sample of 1,000 adults
Method & sample: Random-digit-dial telephone survey of 1,000 US adults, Sept. 2–16, 2025 (Gallup Poll Social Series).
Drift: Wording: the question is trust in newspapers, TV and radio 'to report the news fully, accurately and fairly'
Interest: n/a (independent polling firm; the Social Series is self-funded).
Safe rephrasing: In Gallup's September 2025 poll, 28% of US adults said they trust the mass media a great deal or a fair amount, the first reading below 30%.
Sources: Gallup — Trust in Media at New Low (2025) <https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx>

## Only 10% of Americans rate the honesty and ethics of advertising practitioners as high or very high
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/gallup-advertising-practitioners-10-percent-honest/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Gallup poll, Dec. 1–15, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Only 1 in 10 people think advertisers are honest"
True origin: Gallup — Honesty/Ethics in Professions (Dec. 2025 update) (2025)
Source says: Advertising Practitioners Very high High Average Low Very low No opinion Very high/High % % % % % % % 2025 Dec 1-15 2 8
Method & sample: Gallup Poll Social Series telephone survey of US adults; respondents rate each profession from very high to very low. Advertising practitioners: 2% very high, 8% high, 41% average, 31% low, 14% very low.
Drift: Rounding: 2% very high + 8% high; 45% rate them low or very low
Interest: n/a (independent polling firm; the Social Series is self-funded).
Safe rephrasing: In Gallup's December 2025 honesty-and-ethics poll, 10% of US adults rated advertising practitioners high or very high (2% very high, 8% high), while 45% rated them low or very low.
Sources: Gallup — Honesty/Ethics in Professions <https://news.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx>

## Typical influencer rates: Instagram nano $10–$100+ per post, micro $100–$500+, macro $5,000–$10,000+, mega $10,000+; TikTok nano $50–$200 per video up to mega $5,000–$50,000+
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/influencer-rates-by-tier-instagram-tiktok-youtube-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Rate guide as published Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Micro-influencers charge $100–$500 per post"
True origin: Influencer Marketing Hub — Influencer Rates: How Much Do Influencers Really Cost? (2026) (2026)
Source says: Instagram Nano Under 10,000 $10–$100+ per post Instagram Micro 10,000 - 100,000 $100–$500+ per post Instagram Macro 100,000 - 1,000,000 $5,000–$10,000+ per post Instagram Mega 1,000,000+ $10,000+ per post
Method & sample: Editorial rate ranges compiled by an influencer-marketing publisher; no sample size or survey method is given. YouTube ranges: nano $20–$200+, micro $200–$1,000+, macro $10,000–$20,000+, mega $20,000–$50,000+ per sponsored video.
Drift: These are rough industry ranges, not measured averages; rates vary by niche, usage rights and exclusivity
Interest: The publisher sells influencer-marketing software and agency referrals.
Safe rephrasing: Influencer Marketing Hub's 2026 rate guide gives rough ranges, for example $100–$500+ per Instagram post for micro-influencers (10k–100k followers); treat them as ballpark estimates, not measured averages.
Sources: Influencer Marketing Hub — Influencer rates <https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-rates/>

## Eight in ten US adults ages 18 to 29 use Instagram, compared with 19% of those 65 and older
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-instagram-80-percent-18-29-vs-19-percent-65-plus/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey conducted in 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of young adults are on Instagram"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 (Nov. 20, 2025) (2025)
Source says: eight-in-ten adults ages 18 to 29 say they use Instagram. This is higher than the shares seen among older age groups – especially adults ages 65 and older (19%).
Method & sample: Pew's nationally representative survey of US adults (ATP plus supplementary sample), 2025.
Drift: Scope: 'ever use', not daily use
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's 2025 survey found that about 80% of US adults ages 18–29 use Instagram, versus 19% of those 65 and older.
Sources: Pew — Americans' Social Media Use 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/11/20/americans-social-media-use-2025/>

## 45% of Americans age 12+ have consumed a podcast in the last week
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-podcast-weekly-45-percent-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Infinite Dial 2026 survey (early 2026)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "130 million Americans listen to podcasts every week"
True origin: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 (2026)
Source says: 45% of Americans age 12+ (130 million) have consumed a podcast in the last week – yet another all-time high for podcast consumption Among Americans age 12+, 57% have both listened to and watched a podcas
Method & sample: Nationally representative survey of Americans age 12+ by Edison Research (at SSRS), sponsored by SiriusXM Media and others. 'Consumed' includes listening to or watching.
Drift: Definition: includes watching video podcasts, not only audio listening; 80% have ever listened to or watched a podcast
Interest: Edison sells audio research; the study is sponsored by audio companies.
Safe rephrasing: Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 found that 45% of Americans 12+ (about 130 million) consumed a podcast in the past week, counting both listening and watching.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## Monthly online audio listening among Americans 55+ jumped from 52% in 2024 to 70% in 2026
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-online-audio-55-plus-70-percent-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Infinite Dial 2026 survey (early 2026)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "70% of older Americans now stream audio"
True origin: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 (2026)
Source says: Americans age 55+ are driving the most recent increases. Monthly online audio listening among this group jumped from 52% in 2024 to 70% in 2026
Method & sample: Nationally representative survey of Americans age 12+ (Edison Research at SSRS).
Drift: Scope: monthly listening, not daily
Interest: Edison sells audio research; the study is sponsored by audio companies.
Safe rephrasing: Edison's Infinite Dial 2026 reports that monthly online audio listening among Americans 55+ rose from 52% in 2024 to 70% in 2026.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## Spotify has 777 million users, including 300 million subscribers, in 184 markets
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/spotify-777-million-users-300-million-subscribers/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Company info page as checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Spotify has over 750 million users"
True origin: Spotify — Spotify — Company Info (2026)
Source says: We are the world’s most popular audio streaming subscription service with 777 million users, including 300 million subscribers, in 184 markets.
Method & sample: Company-reported monthly active users and paying subscribers.
Drift: Spotify updates the figure each quarter; check the date
Interest: Spotify reports its own user numbers.
Safe rephrasing: Spotify reports 777 million users, including 300 million paying subscribers, in 184 markets (company info page, checked October 2026).
Sources: Spotify — Company Info <https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/>

## 73% of customers say companies treat them like an individual rather than a number, up from 39% in 2023
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/salesforce-73-percent-treated-as-individual/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Salesforce survey, latest edition as published Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "73% of customers feel treated as individuals"
True origin: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer (latest edition) (2025)
Source says: Seventy-three percent of customers say companies treat them like an individual rather than a number — a staggering leap from 39% in 2023.
Method & sample: Global online survey of consumers and business buyers run for Salesforce; the summary page does not state the sample size.
Drift: Scope: global consumers and business buyers, not US-only
Interest: Salesforce sells CRM and personalization software.
Safe rephrasing: Salesforce's State of the Connected Customer survey reports that 73% of customers feel companies treat them as individuals, up from 39% in 2023; Salesforce sells CRM software.
Sources: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer <https://www.salesforce.com/resources/research-reports/state-of-the-connected-customer/>

## 72% of customers say it's important to know if they're communicating with an AI agent
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/salesforce-72-percent-want-to-know-if-ai-agent/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Salesforce survey, latest edition as published Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most customers want AI disclosure"
True origin: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer (latest edition) (2025)
Source says: 72% of customers say it's important to know if they're communicating with an AI agent.
Method & sample: Global online survey of consumers and business buyers run for Salesforce; sample size not stated on the page. The same page says 64% believe companies are reckless with customer data.
Drift: Scope: global sample
Interest: Salesforce sells AI agent products (Agentforce).
Safe rephrasing: In Salesforce's State of the Connected Customer survey, 72% of customers said it's important to know when they're talking to an AI agent.
Sources: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer <https://www.salesforce.com/resources/research-reports/state-of-the-connected-customer/>

## More than half of customers will switch to a competitor after just one bad experience
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/zendesk-half-switch-after-one-bad-experience/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Zendesk blog as checked Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "50% of customers switch after one bad experience"
True origin: Zendesk — Customer service statistics (Zendesk blog) (2025)
Source says: Per Zendesk Benchmark data, 73 percent of consumers will switch to a competitor after multiple bad experiences, and more than 50 percent will switch after only one bad experience.
Method & sample: Zendesk cites its own 'Benchmark data'; the blog gives no survey year, sample or question wording.
Drift: Stated intention, not measured switching behavior; No method published on the page
Interest: Zendesk sells customer service software.
Safe rephrasing: Zendesk says its benchmark data show more than half of consumers would switch after one bad experience (73% after several); it is a stated intention from a vendor, without a published method.
Sources: Zendesk — Customer service statistics <https://www.zendesk.com/blog/customer-service-statistics/>

## Customers who engage with companies on social media spend 20% to 40% more with them
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/social-media-customers-spend-20-40-percent-more-bain/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey of 3,000+ consumers, 2011
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Social customers spend 20–40% more"
True origin: Bain & Company — Putting Social Media to Work (Sept. 2011) (2011)
Source says: Our recent survey of more than 3,000 consumers helped to identify what makes social media effective. We found that customers who engage with companies over social media spend 20% to 40% more money with those companies th
Method & sample: Bain survey of 3,000+ consumers in 2011; correlation, not a test of whether social engagement causes higher spending.
Drift: Age: 2011 data from the early social era; Causality: heavy spenders are more likely to follow brands, not necessarily the reverse
Interest: Bain sells consulting services.
Safe rephrasing: A 2011 Bain survey of 3,000+ consumers found that people who engaged with companies on social media spent 20–40% more with them; it is old, correlational data.
Sources: Bain — Putting Social Media to Work (2011) <https://www.bain.com/insights/putting-social-media-to-work/>

## 35% of what consumers purchase on Amazon comes from product recommendations
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/amazon-35-percent-purchases-from-recommendations/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2013 article
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "35% of Amazon's revenue comes from its recommendation engine"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — How retailers can keep up with consumers (Oct. 1, 2013) (2013)
Source says: Already, 35 percent of what consumers purchase on Amazon and 75 percent of what they watch on Netflix come from product recommendations based on such algorithms.
Method & sample: Stated in a McKinsey article without a citation or method; Amazon has not published the figure.
Drift: Type: 'what consumers purchase' became 'revenue'; No primary data from Amazon; Age: 2013
Interest: McKinsey sells analytics consulting.
Safe rephrasing: A 2013 McKinsey article estimated that 35% of Amazon purchases come from recommendations, but gave no source and Amazon has never confirmed it; avoid using it as a hard number.
Sources: McKinsey — How retailers can keep up with consumers (2013) <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/how-retailers-can-keep-up-with-consumers>

## Peer recommendations carry ten times more weight than recommendations from salespeople
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/peer-recommendations-10x-weight-of-salespeople/
Verdict: unsourced (No primary data found; the trail ends in a roundup, a disowned quote or a circular citation.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2013 article
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Peer recommendations are 10x more trusted than salespeople"
True origin: McKinsey & Company — How retailers can keep up with consumers (Oct. 1, 2013) (2013)
Source says: Our research shows that for the average consumer, peer recommendations carry ten times more weight than recommendations from salespeople.
Method & sample: Stated in a McKinsey article as 'our research' without a study, sample or method.
Drift: No published study behind the 10x figure; Age: 2013
Interest: McKinsey sells consulting services.
Safe rephrasing: A 2013 McKinsey article claimed peer recommendations weigh about ten times more than salespeople's, but published no study behind it; say peers are far more persuasive without the number.
Sources: McKinsey — How retailers can keep up with consumers (2013) <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/how-retailers-can-keep-up-with-consumers>

## Netflix's recommender system influences about 80% of hours streamed and saves Netflix over $1 billion a year
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/netflix-recommendations-80-percent-of-hours-1-billion/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Paper published Dec. 2015
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "80% of Netflix viewing comes from recommendations"
True origin: Netflix (Gomez-Uribe & Hunt, ACM TMIS) — The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation (2015) (2015)
Source says: in total influences choice for about 80% of hours streamed at Netflix. The remaining 20% comes from search ... We think the combined effect of personalization and recommendations save us more than $1B per year.
Method & sample: Peer-reviewed paper by two Netflix executives; the $1B is their estimate of reduced churn, not an audited figure.
Drift: 'Influences choice' is not 'comes only from recommendations'; The $1B is an internal estimate ('we think'); Age: 2015
Interest: Authors were Netflix employees describing their own product.
Safe rephrasing: Netflix executives wrote in a 2015 ACM paper that recommendations influence about 80% of hours streamed and estimated they save over $1B a year in churn.
Sources: ACM TMIS — The Netflix Recommender System (2015) <https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2843948>

## Google crossed 300 million paid subscriptions across services like Google One and YouTube Premium
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-300-million-paid-subscriptions-q3-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q3 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google has 300M+ paying subscribers"
True origin: Alphabet (Sundar Pichai earnings remarks) — Q3 2025 earnings call: CEO remarks (Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: And we crossed 300 million paid subscriptions, led by growth in Google One and YouTube Premium.
Method & sample: Company-reported count of paid subscriptions (not unique people), Q3 2025.
Drift: Subscriptions, not individual subscribers; one person can hold several
Interest: Company describing its own results.
Safe rephrasing: Alphabet said in October 2025 that it had crossed 300 million paid subscriptions, led by Google One and YouTube Premium.
Sources: Alphabet Q3 2025 CEO remarks <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/alphabet-earnings-q3-2025/>

## Google processes over 1.3 quadrillion AI tokens a month, more than 20x growth in a year
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/google-1-3-quadrillion-monthly-tokens-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Q3 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google processes a quadrillion tokens a month"
True origin: Alphabet (Sundar Pichai earnings remarks) — Q3 2025 earnings call: CEO remarks (Oct. 2025) (2025)
Source says: In July, we announced that we processed 980 trillion monthly tokens across all our surfaces. We are now processing over 1.3 quadrillion monthly tokens, more than 20x growth in a year.
Method & sample: Company-reported total tokens processed across Google products and APIs per month.
Drift: A measure of compute usage, not users
Interest: Company describing its own results.
Safe rephrasing: Alphabet said in October 2025 that it processes over 1.3 quadrillion AI tokens a month across its products, up more than 20x in a year.
Sources: Alphabet Q3 2025 CEO remarks <https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/alphabet-earnings-q3-2025/>

## The American Marketing Association defines marketing as the activity, institutions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging offerings that have value
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/ama-definition-of-marketing/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Definition approved 2017, page checked Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AMA definition of marketing"
True origin: American Marketing Association — Definitions of Marketing (2017)
Source says: Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
Method & sample: Official AMA definition, reviewed periodically by a panel of scholars.
Drift: Often paraphrased; quote it exactly
Interest: n/a (professional association).
Safe rephrasing: The AMA defines marketing as "the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large."
Sources: AMA — Definitions of Marketing <https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/>

## Typical users spend 1 hour 13 minutes a day on Instagram, 67 minutes on Facebook and 59 minutes on WhatsApp
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/instagram-73-facebook-67-whatsapp-59-minutes-a-day/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Similarweb App Intelligence, Android users, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "People spend over an hour a day on Instagram"
True origin: DataReportal (Kepios), citing Similarweb — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (2026)
Source says: Instagram ranks third, with users spending an average of 1 hour and 13 minutes per day using the platform’s Android app, while fourth-ranked Facebook is the last of the top platforms to capture an average of more than one hour per day (67 minutes
Method & sample: Similarweb panel data for Android app users worldwide, as reported by DataReportal. Time per user of each app, not per person online.
Drift: Scope: Android app users only, global; Average among each app's users, not all internet users
Interest: DataReportal is published with partners including Meltwater and We Are Social.
Safe rephrasing: Similarweb data cited in DataReportal's Digital 2026 report show Android users spending about 73 minutes a day on Instagram, 67 on Facebook and 59 on WhatsApp.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## Women aged 16 to 24 spend an average of more than 3 hours 40 minutes a day on social and video feeds
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/women-16-24-spend-3-hours-40-minutes-on-social-daily/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: GWI survey data, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Young women spend nearly 4 hours a day on social media"
True origin: DataReportal (Kepios), citing GWI — Digital 2026 Global Overview Report (2026)
Source says: women aged 16 to 24 spend an average of 25 hours and 45 minutes per week scrolling social and video feeds, which equates to an average of more than 3 hours and 40 minutes each day.
Method & sample: GWI online survey of internet users aged 16+ across ~50 markets; self-reported time. The global average is 18 hours 36 minutes a week.
Drift: Self-reported time; Global average, not US
Interest: GWI sells audience research; DataReportal partners with agencies.
Safe rephrasing: GWI data in DataReportal's Digital 2026 report show women aged 16–24 reporting about 25.75 hours a week (3h40m a day) on social and video feeds, versus an 18.6-hour weekly average.
Sources: DataReportal — Digital 2026 Global Overview <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report>

## US private AI investment reached $109.1 billion in 2024, nearly 12 times China's
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/us-private-ai-investment-109-billion-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Calendar 2024 data
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "US invested $109B in AI in 2024"
True origin: Stanford HAI — AI Index Report 2025 (2025)
Source says: In 2024, U.S. private AI investment grew to $109.1 billion—nearly 12 times China’s $9.3 billion and 24 times the U.K.’s $4.5 billion. Generative AI saw particularly strong momentum, attracting $33.9 billion globally in
Method & sample: AI Index analysis of private investment data (Quid) for 2024.
Drift: Private investment only, not corporate capex or government spending
Interest: n/a (academic institute).
Safe rephrasing: Stanford's AI Index 2025 reports US private AI investment of $109.1 billion in 2024, about 12 times China's $9.3 billion; generative AI drew $33.9 billion globally.
Sources: Stanford HAI — AI Index 2025 <https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report>

## In the US, Google has about 85% of search engine market share and Bing about 10%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-us-google-85-bing-9-9-percent-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: September 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Google has 90% of search"
True origin: Statcounter Global Stats — Search Engine Market Share United States (Sept. 2026) (2026)
Source says: Search Engine Market Share in United States Of America - September 2026 Google 85.19 % bing 9.89 % Yahoo! 2.64 % DuckDuckGo 1.75 %
Method & sample: Statcounter counts page views on the 1.5M+ sites that use its tracking code; it is a share of page views, not of users or queries.
Drift: The often-quoted ~90% is the global share; US share is lower; Share of referrals from search pages, not of queries
Interest: n/a (web analytics firm publishing free aggregate data).
Safe rephrasing: Statcounter put Google at 85.2% and Bing at 9.9% of US search engine referrals in September 2026.
Sources: Statcounter — US search engine share <https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/united-states-of-america>

## In the US, mobile accounts for about 49% of web traffic and desktop about 48%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-us-mobile-49-desktop-48-percent-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: September 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most US web traffic is mobile"
True origin: Statcounter Global Stats — Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share United States (Sept. 2026) (2026)
Source says: Desktop vs Mobile vs Tablet Market Share in United States Of America - September 2026 Mobile 49.1 % Desktop 48.47 % Tablet 2.42 %
Method & sample: Statcounter counts page views on the 1.5M+ sites that use its tracking code; it is a share of page views, not of users or queries.
Drift: Global mobile share is far higher (about 59%); the US is near even
Interest: n/a (web analytics firm publishing free aggregate data).
Safe rephrasing: Statcounter measured US web page views in September 2026 as 49.1% mobile, 48.5% desktop and 2.4% tablet.
Sources: Statcounter — US platform share <https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/united-states-of-america>

## iOS runs about 54% of US mobile web traffic and Android about 46%
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/statcounter-us-ios-54-android-46-percent-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: September 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most Americans use iPhones"
True origin: Statcounter Global Stats — Mobile OS Market Share United States (Sept. 2026) (2026)
Source says: Mobile Operating System Market Share in United States Of America - September 2026 iOS 53.59 % Android 46.39 %
Method & sample: Statcounter counts page views on the 1.5M+ sites that use its tracking code; it is a share of page views, not of users or queries.
Drift: Share of mobile page views, not of devices or people
Interest: n/a (web analytics firm publishing free aggregate data).
Safe rephrasing: Statcounter measured US mobile web page views in September 2026 as 53.6% iOS and 46.4% Android.
Sources: Statcounter — US mobile OS share <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america>

## Global internet traffic grew 19% in 2025
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cloudflare-global-internet-traffic-grew-19-percent-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2025 (year to date, through early December)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Internet traffic grew 19% last year"
True origin: Cloudflare Radar — Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review (2025)
Source says: Global Internet traffic grew 19% in 2025, with significant growth starting in August.
Method & sample: Traffic observed across Cloudflare's global network.
Drift: Measured on Cloudflare's network, a large but partial view of the internet
Interest: Cloudflare sells network and security services.
Safe rephrasing: Cloudflare's 2025 Year in Review reported that global internet traffic on its network grew 19% in 2025.
Sources: Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review <https://blog.cloudflare.com/radar-2025-year-in-review/>

## Googlebot alone accounted for 4.5% of HTML request traffic in 2025, more than all other AI bots combined (4.2%)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/googlebot-4-5-percent-html-requests-vs-ai-bots-4-2/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2025 (year to date)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI crawlers are flooding websites"
True origin: Cloudflare Radar — Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review (2025)
Source says: While other AI bots accounted for 4.2% of HTML request traffic, Googlebot alone accounted for 4.5%.
Method & sample: Share of HTML requests across Cloudflare's network attributed to verified crawlers. Googlebot serves both search and AI features.
Drift: Googlebot is dual-purpose (search + AI), so it is not purely an AI crawler
Interest: Cloudflare sells bot management and pay-per-crawl products.
Safe rephrasing: Cloudflare's 2025 data show Googlebot alone at 4.5% of HTML requests on its network, versus 4.2% for all other AI bots combined.
Sources: Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review <https://blog.cloudflare.com/radar-2025-year-in-review/>

## The US has 36.2 million small businesses, which account for almost 46% of private-sector employment
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/sba-36-2-million-small-businesses-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: 2025 profiles (latest federal data available in 2025)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "There are over 36 million small businesses in the US"
True origin: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy — 2025 Small Business Profiles (press release, June 30, 2025) (2025)
Source says: the U.S. contains 36.2 million small businesses, which account for almost 46 percent of private sector employment.
Method & sample: Office of Advocacy compilation of Census and BLS data. 'Small' means fewer than 500 employees; most are non-employer firms (sole proprietors).
Drift: Most of the 36.2 million have no employees; Small = under 500 employees, which includes fairly large firms
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: The SBA Office of Advocacy counted 36.2 million US small businesses (under 500 employees, including non-employers) in 2025, accounting for almost 46% of private-sector employment.
Sources: SBA Office of Advocacy — 2025 Small Business Profiles <https://advocacy.sba.gov/2025/06/30/new-advocacy-report-shows-the-number-of-small-businesses-in-the-u-s-exceeds-36-million/>

## US small businesses created about 9 out of every 10 net new jobs from March 2023 to March 2024
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/small-businesses-created-9-of-10-net-new-jobs-2023-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: March 2023 – March 2024
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Small businesses create most new jobs"
True origin: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy — 2025 Small Business Profiles (press release, June 30, 2025) (2025)
Source says: From March 2023 to March 2024, U.S. small businesses created approximately 9 out of every 10 net new jobs.
Method & sample: Office of Advocacy analysis of federal employment data for one 12-month period.
Drift: One year's net figure; the share swings widely year to year
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: The SBA Office of Advocacy reports that small businesses created about 9 in 10 net new US jobs from March 2023 to March 2024.
Sources: SBA Office of Advocacy — 2025 Small Business Profiles <https://advocacy.sba.gov/2025/06/30/new-advocacy-report-shows-the-number-of-small-businesses-in-the-u-s-exceeds-36-million/>

## US business applications were 534,947 in September 2026 (seasonally adjusted)
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/census-business-applications-534947-sept-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: September 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Over half a million new business applications a month"
True origin: U.S. Census Bureau — Business Formation Statistics (release CB26-163, Oct. 14, 2026) (2026)
Source says: Business Applications for September 2026, adjusted for seasonal variation, were 534,947, an increase of 0.5 percent compared to August 2026.
Method & sample: Count of EIN applications filed with the IRS, seasonally adjusted. Projected business formations within 4 quarters were 29,022 for the same month.
Drift: Applications are not businesses; only a small share become employers (29,022 projected formations)
Interest: n/a (federal statistical agency).
Safe rephrasing: Census counted 534,947 seasonally adjusted US business applications in September 2026; it projects only about 29,000 of that month's applications to become employer businesses within a year.
Sources: Census — Business Formation Statistics <https://www.census.gov/econ/bfs/current/index.html>

## 19% of shoppers abandon checkout because they didn't trust the site with their card and 18% because it wanted them to create an account
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/baymard-19-percent-abandon-distrust-18-percent-forced-account/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Baymard US survey, 2025–2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Forced account creation causes 1 in 5 cart abandonments"
True origin: Baymard Institute — Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics 2026 (2026)
Source says: 40 % Extra costs too high (shipping, tax, fees) 20 % Delivery was too slow 19 % I didn't trust the site with my credit card information 18 % The site wanted me to create an account 17 % Too long / complicated checkout process
Method & sample: Baymard survey of US online shoppers who abandoned a purchase, excluding those who were 'just browsing'; multiple answers allowed.
Drift: Share of abandoners (excluding browsers), not of all shoppers; Multiple reasons allowed, so shares overlap
Interest: Baymard sells UX research and audits.
Safe rephrasing: Among US shoppers who abandoned a checkout (excluding 'just browsing'), Baymard found 19% cited distrust of the site with card details and 18% cited forced account creation.
Sources: Baymard — Cart Abandonment Rate Statistics <https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate>

## 97% of B2B marketers say they have a content strategy
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cmi-97-percent-b2b-marketers-have-content-strategy-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey of 1,015 B2B marketers, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Almost all B2B marketers have a content strategy"
True origin: Content Marketing Institute & MarketingProfs — B2B Content and Marketing Trends: Insights for 2026 (2025)
Source says: the survey of 1,015 B2B marketers, conducted with MarketingProfs and sponsored by Storyblok ... Ninety-seven percent of marketers told us they have a content strategy (only 3% don’t).
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,015 B2B marketers (CMI/MarketingProfs subscribers). Of those with a strategy, 13% said it significantly improved and 48% somewhat improved.
Drift: Self-selected sample of content-marketing newsletter readers; 'Have a strategy' is self-reported; CMI separately tracks documented strategies
Interest: CMI is owned by Informa, which runs marketing events; this report was sponsored by Storyblok (a CMS vendor).
Safe rephrasing: In CMI's survey of 1,015 B2B marketers for 2026, 97% said they have a content strategy; the sample is drawn from content-marketing audiences.
Sources: CMI — B2B Content and Marketing Trends 2026 <https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/b2b-research/b2b-content-marketing-trends-research>

## Only 12% of B2B marketers rate their marketing as highly effective
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cmi-12-percent-b2b-marketers-highly-effective-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey of 1,015 B2B marketers, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Just 12% of B2B marketers exceed their goals"
True origin: Content Marketing Institute & MarketingProfs — B2B Content and Marketing Trends: Insights for 2026 (2025)
Source says: 12% say they're highly effective (exceeded goals). 47% say they're somewhat effective (met most goals). 31% say they're neutral (mixed results).
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,015 B2B marketers; self-rated effectiveness over the previous 12 months.
Drift: Self-assessment, not measured outcomes
Interest: CMI is owned by Informa, which runs marketing events; this report was sponsored by Storyblok (a CMS vendor).
Safe rephrasing: In CMI's 2026 B2B survey, 12% of marketers rated themselves highly effective (exceeded goals) and 47% somewhat effective.
Sources: CMI — B2B Content and Marketing Trends 2026 <https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/b2b-research/b2b-content-marketing-trends-research>

## 85% of people say they've been convinced to buy a product or service by watching a video
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/wyzowl-85-percent-convinced-to-buy-by-video-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Fieldwork late 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "85% of people buy after watching a product video"
True origin: Wyzowl — Video Marketing Statistics 2026 (State of Video Marketing) (2026)
Source says: 85 % of people have been convinced to buy by watching a video 63 % of people would most like to learn about a product by watching a short video
Method & sample: Wyzowl's annual online survey of marketers and consumers, fieldwork late 2025; small samples (266 marketer respondents).
Drift: 'Ever been convinced' is not 'buy after watching'; Small vendor survey
Interest: Wyzowl sells explainer-video production.
Safe rephrasing: In Wyzowl's 2026 survey, 85% of consumers said a video had convinced them to buy at some point; it is a small survey by a video-production firm.
Sources: Wyzowl — Video Marketing Statistics 2026 <https://www.wyzowl.com/video-marketing-statistics/>

## 82% of US adults read online reviews before buying something for the first time
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-82-percent-read-online-reviews-before-buying/
Verdict: outdated (Source found and quoted correctly, but old enough that the market has changed.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey conducted in 2015
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "82% of Americans read reviews before buying"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Online reviews and ratings (Dec. 19, 2016) (2016)
Source says: Fully 82% of U.S. adults say they at least sometimes read online customer ratings or reviews before purchasing items for the first time, including 40% who say they always or almost always do so.
Method & sample: Pew nationally representative survey of US adults (2015). 53% of 18–29-year-olds always or almost always read reviews vs 23% of those 65+.
Drift: 'At least sometimes', not always (40% always or almost always); Age: 2015 data; Pew has not updated it
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew found in 2016 that 82% of US adults at least sometimes read online reviews before a first-time purchase, and 40% always or almost always do; it is older data.
Sources: Pew — Online reviews and ratings (2016) <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/19/online-reviews/>

## 97% of consumers read online reviews for local businesses
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/brightlocal-97-percent-read-local-business-reviews-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: BrightLocal survey, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "97% of consumers read reviews"
True origin: BrightLocal — Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 (2026)
Source says: Reviews are a vital part of the business decision-making process, with 97% of consumers reading reviews online. In 2026, 41% of consumers “always” rea
Method & sample: BrightLocal's annual online survey of US consumers about local business reviews.
Drift: 'Ever read' (97%) vs 'always read' (41%); Local businesses only
Interest: BrightLocal sells local SEO and review-management software.
Safe rephrasing: BrightLocal's 2026 Local Consumer Review Survey found 97% of consumers read reviews of local businesses and 41% always do; BrightLocal sells review software.
Sources: BrightLocal — Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 <https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey/>

## 47% of consumers won't use a business with fewer than 20 reviews
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/brightlocal-47-percent-wont-use-business-under-20-reviews/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: BrightLocal survey, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Half of consumers need 20+ reviews"
True origin: BrightLocal — Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 (2026)
Source says: 47% of consumers won’t use a business with fewer than 20 reviews, and only 9% are willing to use one with five or fewer
Method & sample: BrightLocal's annual online survey of US consumers. The same survey says 74% only care about reviews from the last three months.
Drift: Stated preference, not observed behavior
Interest: BrightLocal sells local SEO and review-management software.
Safe rephrasing: In BrightLocal's 2026 survey, 47% of consumers said they won't use a local business with fewer than 20 reviews; it is a stated preference from a review-software vendor's survey.
Sources: BrightLocal — Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 <https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey/>

## LinkedIn has 233 million members in North America, 257 million in Europe and 277 million in Asia-Pacific
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/linkedin-north-america-233-million-members/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Page checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "LinkedIn has over 200 million US users"
True origin: LinkedIn Marketing Solutions — LinkedIn audience page (2026)
Source says: Asia-Pacific: 277 million users</li>\r\n<li>Europe: 257 million users</li>\r\n<li>North America: 233 million users
Method & sample: Company-reported registered members by region (not monthly active users).
Drift: Registered members, not active users; North America includes Canada, so it is not a US figure
Interest: LinkedIn sells advertising against this audience.
Safe rephrasing: LinkedIn reports 233 million registered members in North America (277 million in Asia-Pacific, 257 million in Europe); these are members, not active users.
Sources: LinkedIn Marketing Solutions — Audience <https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-solutions/audience>

## Audiences exposed to both brand and acquisition messages on LinkedIn are 6x more likely to convert
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/linkedin-brand-and-acquisition-6x-more-likely-to-convert/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Page checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Full-funnel LinkedIn campaigns convert 6x better"
True origin: LinkedIn Marketing Solutions — LinkedIn audience page (2026)
Source says: Audiences exposed to brand and acquisition messages on LinkedIn are 6x more likely to convert.
Method & sample: A LinkedIn marketing claim with no study, date or method on the page.
Drift: Exposed audiences are self-selected (more engaged users see more ads), so it is not a causal lift; No method published
Interest: LinkedIn sells the ads being measured.
Safe rephrasing: LinkedIn says audiences who see both its brand and acquisition ads are 6x more likely to convert, but publishes no method; treat it as a vendor claim, not a measured lift.
Sources: LinkedIn Marketing Solutions — Audience <https://business.linkedin.com/marketing-solutions/audience>

## 84% of Americans 12+ use YouTube monthly and 78% use it weekly
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/edison-youtube-84-percent-monthly-78-weekly-2026/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Infinite Dial 2026 survey (early 2026)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Almost everyone uses YouTube"
True origin: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 (2026)
Source says: Nine in ten Americans age 12+ have ever used YouTube; 84% use YouTube monthly and 78% use YouTube weekly
Method & sample: Nationally representative survey of Americans age 12+ (Edison Research at SSRS).
Drift: Age 12+, not adults; Pew's 84% figure is for adults who 'ever use' YouTube
Interest: Edison sells audio research; the study is sponsored by audio companies.
Safe rephrasing: Edison's Infinite Dial 2026 found 84% of Americans 12+ use YouTube monthly and 78% weekly.
Sources: Edison Research — The Infinite Dial 2026 <https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-infinite-dial-2026/>

## 64% of customers believe companies are reckless with customer data
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/salesforce-64-percent-think-companies-reckless-with-data/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: medium
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Salesforce survey, latest edition as published Oct. 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Most customers think brands are careless with data"
True origin: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer (latest edition) (2025)
Source says: However, currently 64% believe companies are reckless with customer data.
Method & sample: Global online survey of consumers and business buyers run for Salesforce; sample size not stated on the page.
Drift: Scope: global sample
Interest: Salesforce sells CRM and data software.
Safe rephrasing: In Salesforce's State of the Connected Customer survey, 64% of customers said companies are reckless with customer data.
Sources: Salesforce — State of the Connected Customer <https://www.salesforce.com/resources/research-reports/state-of-the-connected-customer/>

## AI "user action" crawling increased more than 15x in 2025
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/cloudflare-ai-user-action-crawling-15x-2025/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: 2025 (year to date)
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "AI agents browsing the web grew 15x"
True origin: Cloudflare Radar — Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review (2025)
Source says: AI “user action” crawling increased by over 15x in 2025.
Method & sample: Requests on Cloudflare's network from AI fetchers acting on a user's prompt (as opposed to training or search crawls).
Drift: Growth from a small base; not a share of traffic; Measured on Cloudflare's network only
Interest: Cloudflare sells bot management and pay-per-crawl products.
Safe rephrasing: Cloudflare reported that AI 'user action' crawling (fetches made when someone asks an AI assistant) grew more than 15x on its network in 2025.
Sources: Cloudflare Radar 2025 Year in Review <https://blog.cloudflare.com/radar-2025-year-in-review/>

## Generative AI attracted $33.9 billion in private investment globally in 2024, up 18.7% from 2023
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/generative-ai-private-investment-33-9-billion-2024/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Calendar 2024 data
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "$34B invested in generative AI in 2024"
True origin: Stanford HAI — AI Index Report 2025 (2025)
Source says: Generative AI saw particularly strong momentum, attracting $33.9 billion globally in private investment—an 18.7% increase from 2023.
Method & sample: AI Index analysis of private investment data for 2024.
Drift: Private investment only
Interest: n/a (academic institute).
Safe rephrasing: Stanford's AI Index 2025 reports $33.9 billion of global private investment in generative AI in 2024, up 18.7% from 2023.
Sources: Stanford HAI — AI Index 2025 <https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report>

## Spotify offers over 100 million tracks, 7 million podcast titles and 700,000 audiobooks
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/spotify-100-million-tracks-7-million-podcasts/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Reference fact
Data as of: Company info page as checked Oct. 16, 2026
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Spotify has 100 million songs"
True origin: Spotify — Spotify — Company Info (2026)
Source says: enjoy over 100 million tracks, 7 million podcast titles, and 700,000 audiobooks on Spotify.
Method & sample: Company-reported catalog size.
Drift: Catalog counts change continuously
Interest: Spotify reports its own catalog.
Safe rephrasing: Spotify says its catalog includes over 100 million tracks, 7 million podcast titles and 700,000 audiobooks (checked October 2026).
Sources: Spotify — Company Info <https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/>

## 16% of US teens use X, down from 23% in 2022 and 33% in 2014–15
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/pew-teens-x-16-percent-down-from-33/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: high
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Survey Sept. 25 – Oct. 9, 2025
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "Teens are leaving Twitter/X"
True origin: Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 (Dec. 9, 2025) (2025)
Source says: 16% of teens use X, down from 23% in 2022 and 33% in 2014-15 ... The Center conducted an online survey of 1,458 U.S. teens from Sept. 25 to Oct. 9, 2025, through Ipsos.
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,458 US teens ages 13–17 via Ipsos KnowledgePanel (probability-based), Sept.–Oct. 2025.
Drift: Ever use, not daily use
Interest: n/a (nonpartisan research center funded mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts).
Safe rephrasing: Pew's fall 2025 survey found 16% of US teens use X, down from 23% in 2022 and 33% in 2014–15.
Sources: Pew — Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025 <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/>

## 70% of consumers feel more connected to brands whose CEOs are active on social media
URL: https://groundedkit.com/claims/sprout-70-percent-more-connected-ceo-active-social/
Verdict: verified (Primary source found; it says the same thing, the scope matches, and it is reasonably current.)
Confidence: low
Type: Stat check
Data as of: Online survey fielded Nov. 20–26, 2018
Last checked: 2026-10-16
Commonly cited as: "70% of consumers prefer brands with social CEOs"
True origin: Sprout Social — #BrandsGetReal: What consumers want from brands in a divided society (2018)
Source says: 70% of consumers feel more connected to brands with CEOs that are active on social. ... We surveyed more than 1,000 consumers ... The survey was conducted online between Nov. 20–26, 2018.
Method & sample: Online survey of 1,000+ US consumers by Sprout Social, fielded Nov. 20–26, 2018.
Drift: 'Feel more connected' is not purchase behavior; Age: 2018 vendor survey
Interest: Sprout Social sells social media management software.
Safe rephrasing: A Sprout Social survey of 1,000+ consumers found 70% feel more connected to brands whose CEOs are active on social; it is a 2018 vendor survey.
Sources: Sprout Social — #BrandsGetReal <https://sproutsocial.com/insights/data/social-media-connection/>