Snapple might be gearing up for a long-awaited comeback by taking a page out of its 90s playbook.
On February 18, Snapples parent company, Keurig Dr Pepper, announced that the beloved tea brand is unveiling a refreshed visual identity designed to return the Snapple brand to icon-status. The new look, which will roll out beginning this March, includes new graphics, a logo inspired by the brands 90s look, and an updated bottle design that hearkens back to its original glass packaging. At the same time, Keurig Dr Pepper told Fast Company that its reinvesting in marketing efforts for Snapple, including through an ongoing campaign focused on the drink’s hometown of New York City.
For Snapple, the new look and marketing boost represent a return to form thats been a long time coming. After Snapples heyday in the 90scharacterized by its scrappy roots, funky packaging, and wacky ad strategythe brand has struggled to hold onto cultural relevance amidst a catastrophic sale, ownership changes, and several ill-advised rebrands.
Now, its looking to tap back into the playful energy that once made it the beverage of choice for 90s kids.
Current packaging (left) and 2026 refresh (right) [Image: Keurig Dr Pepper]
Snapple’s rollercoaster of a brand history
Snapple was founded in 1972 in Long Island, New York, by three friends. Their initial idea was for a company called Unadulterated Food Products, which would capitalize on a new wave of interest in better-for-you foods by selling fruit juices to health stores. One founder, Leaonrd Marsh, would later say of the venture that he knew as much about juice as about making an atom bomb.
As The New York Times noted in Marshs 2013 obituary, the three men did wind up making a bomb of sorts: a batch of carbonated apple juice that accidentally fermented, shooting scores of bottle caps skyward. Thankfully, this happy accident sparked a transition from the name Unadulterated Food Products to Snapple, a portmanteau of snappy and apple. Snapples bottles were made from a rounded glass, featured bright colors and a slightly cursive logo, and emitted a satisfying snap sound when the cap released the beverages carbonation.
Snapples original business model involved partnering with independent distributors to stock the beverage in smaller stores. The brand truly took off in the early 90s, when it began to enter the cultural zeitgeist through a series of zany, irreverent ads that emphasized its underdog status compared to big names like Coca Cola and Pepsi.
Undoubtedly, though, its biggest asset was a spokesperson named Wendy Kaufman, who, after appearing in several ads, became a beloved representative known as Wendy the Snapple lady (see this spot and this spot of Kaufman answering fan questions). Between 1992 and 1994, sales jumped from $232 million to $774 million.
Then, in 1994, Quaker Oats acquired Snapple in a $1.7 billion transaction that would go down in marketing textbooks as a prime example of how not to make a deal. Quaker swooped in, sanded down Snapples edgy personality, made its bottles bigger, relegated Kaufman to the back burner, and scrapped its independent distribution model, only to sell the company just three years later to Triarc Companies for $300 million. A brand disaster, indeed.
A post-“Quakergate” challenge
Since Quakergate, Snapple has been fighting an uphill battle to maintain cultural relevancea journey thats involved multiple rebrands and several ownership changes. Along the way, it has shed many of the brand assets that originally made it an outlier on grocery store shelves.
In 2008, Snapple became part of the Dr Pepper Snapple Group when Cadbury spun off its beverage business. Then, in 2018, Snapple joined Keurig Dr Pepper through a merger of Dr Pepper Snapple Group and Keurig Green Mountain. Between 2016 and 2017, Dr Pepper Snapple reported a 3% decline in the sale of Snapple products. According to Derek Dabrowski, SVP of brand marketing at Keurig Dr Pepper, Snapple has seen overall retail sales growth since the 2018 merger, but more recently that momentum slowed as shelf presence declined and marketing support eased.
Undoubtedly, a not insignificant part of the brands struggles has emerged from the fact that Snapple has lost its quirk. The brand got refreshes in both 2008 and 2015, and in 2021 Keurig Dr Pepper gave it a full-on rebrand. Snapples new logo was ultra-modernized into a blue-and-white sans serif; its glass bottles were replaced with recycled plastic; and its charmingly kitschy graphics were swapped for more commercial imagery. The company also attempted to reach younger consumers with a new line called Snapple Elements, which ultimately fizzled out.
Longtime fans of the brand bemoaned the changes,with many claiming that Snapple tasted better out of glass. Gone was the quintessential Snapple snap, replaced with a quotidian plastic sigh.
Snapple’s vintage logo (top), current (middle), and 2026 refresh (bottom). [Image: Keurig Dr Pepper]
A return to Snapple’s quirky form
Now, it seems, Keurig Dr Pepper is realizing that its rebrand may have been a bit too hasty.
Looking back, some of these efforts, especially chasing multiple trends at once, left the brand feeling a bit fragmented, Dabrowski says.
Snapples upcoming brand refresh spans graphics, logo, packaging communication, and bottle design. The bottles illustrations will call back to earlier iterations of Snapple with bolder colors and a slightly more retro look. Flavor signalers like Real Tea and Real Juice will take center stage on the packaging, connecting to the brands origins as a healthy beverage. And the sans serif logo will be replaced with a modernized version of the Snapple logo that defined the brand in the 90s.
The new Snapple logo isnt a carbon copy of the one from the late 80s and early 2000s, but its very intentionally inspired by that era, Dabrowski says. We brought back the iconic racetrack shape and heritage cues people recognize, then refined them to work better on todays shelveswith clearer readability, bolder color, and stronger flavor storytelling.
Marketing to match
Snapple has also been slowly tapping back into its irreverent advertising roots. Last fall, the brand launched a new campaign called Snapsolutely Refreshing with a media buy in its NYC hometown, including out-of-home placements across subways, street panels, office elevators and Times Square. It ran a one-day bodega takeover featuring free Snapple and branded merch. For a limited time, the brand even brought back glass Snapple bottles at a few retailers across the city.
And the ad accompanying Snapsolutely Refreshing feels charmingly similar to something Snapple might have made in its 90s underdog glory days: A man in an NYC bodega is confronted by a series of slightly creepy, talking wellness culture beverages, like kombucha and probiotic soda, before ultimately choosing to sip a Snapple instead.
Still, for diehard Snapple fans, a key question remains: Will the glass bottle ever make a real comeback?
That remains a bit of a mystery. Dabrowski says that in September, Snapple will roll out a new plastic bottle that mimics the originals shape and embossed logo. And, when pressed, a spokesperson shared that the brand is continuing to test glass bottles and learn from consumer response.
Whether Snapple ever gets its snap back remains to be seenbut, for now, the brand is at least looking (and sounding) a little more like itself.
A CEO sits in a boardroom, staring at a strategy deck generated overnight by AI. The analysis is sharp. The recommendations are confident. The numbers line up.
And yet something feels off. It feels flat, almost a little too perfect . . .
This moment is becoming increasingly common for leaders. Artificial intelligence is now one of the most powerful management tools ever created. It can analyze markets in seconds, surface patterns no human team could find, and generate plans on demand. For many executives, AI already feels indispensable.
But as intelligence scales at unprecedented speed, a quieter question is emerging inside organizations: How do we ensure AI is focused on human flourishing?
Intelligence Is Scaling. Wisdom Is Not
AI excels at intelligence. It detects patterns, predicts outcomes, and optimizes for efficiency. What it does not possess is contextual wisdom: the ability to understand why a decision matters, how it will land emotionally and culturally, or what it reinforces over time.
Leadership has never been about having the most information. It has always been about deciding what matters when information conflicts.
In an AI-rich environment, where intelligence is being commoditized, leaders face a subtle temptation to outsource judgement itself. When dashboards look precise and recommendations feel objective, optimization can easily be mistaken for wisdom.
But AI cannot answer the questions leaders are increasingly accountable for:
How is this affecting the precious humans in my care?
What values are driving this decision?
Is this decision indicative of the kind of world we are trying to build together?
These are not computational questions. They are human ones.
The Real Risk: Abdicated Leadership
Much of the public conversation about AI risk focuses on bias or misuse. Those concerns are real. But inside organizations, a quieter risk is emerging: outsourcing thinking that affects humans to the machine.
When leaders defer too often to AI-generated recommendations, they slowly lose confidence in their own judgment. Leadership shifts from sense-making to system-monitoring. Teams stop debating. Leaders stop interpreting reality and start validating outputs.
The result isnt better leadership. Its thinner leadership.
Over time, this shows up as cultural drift, ethical blind spots, employee disengagement, and loss of trustespecially during moments like layoffs, restructures, or major strategic shifts. When leaders cant clearly explain why a decision was made, people feel optimized instead of led.
Strong leaders dont just decide what to do. They articulate why it matters. They connect decisions to shared meaning, values, and narrative. They help teams understand how todays choices fit into a longer human arc of transformation and evolution.
AI can propose solutions. Only humans can author meaning.
Why Clarity Is Becoming a Core Leadership Skill
In an AI-saturated world, clarity is a force multiplier.
Clarity about purpose.Clarity about values.Clarity about what not to optimize.
Put simply: Clarity is deciding what you refuse to let AI optimize.
AI will happily optimize for speed, efficiency, engagement, or cost reduction. It will not ask whether those optimizations erode trust, creativity, resilience, or long-term cohesion. Leaders must.
This is why clarity, not charisma or technical expertise, is becoming one of the most critical leadership capabilities of the next decade.
Clarity allows leaders to:
Set boundaries around how and where AI is used
Frame AI insights within human context
Decide when efficiency should yield to ethics
Protect creativity where optimization would flatten it
Without clarity, leaders risk becoming reactive to machine intelligence instead of responsible for human outcomes.
How Effective Leaders Use AI Without Becoming Dependent on It
The goal is not to resist AI. It is to place AI correctly within leadership practice.
Three principles can help leaders do that:
Treat AI as an advisor, not an authority.Use AI to surface options, test assumptions, and explore scenariosbut make it explicit that final judgment remains human. In practice, this means leaders own decisions in their own words, not by pointing to an algorithm.
Slow down at meaning-making moments.When decisions affect people, culture, or identity (hiring, layoffs, strategy shifts, values) pause. Ask not only What does the data suggest? but What does this decision communicate about who we are?
Invest in judgment, not just AI literacy.AI skills matter. But judgment skills matter more. Organizations that thrive will be led by people trained to reason ethically, think systemically, and articulate values under pressurenot just operate tools efficiently.
Meaning Is the Leadership Advantage AI Cant Touch
In moments of uncertainty, people dont look to leaders for perfect predictions. They look for orientation.
They want to know:
What matters now?
What should I focus on?
How does my work connect to something meaningful?
AI cannot provide that orientation. Leadership can.
As machine intelligence accelerates, meaning potentially becomes more scarce and more valuable. Leaders who offer clarity amid complexity and purpose amid acceleration dont just build better cultures. They drive stronger innovation, greater organizational resilience, and long-term value creation.
The Capability That Endures
Every technological shift reshapes leadership. This one is no exception.
But the core truth remains: leadership is not about knowing more. It is about seeing more clearly and exercising wisdom under pressure.
AI will continue to evolve. Capabilities will expand. Tools will improve.
What must deepen alongside them is human leaderships capacity for clarity, judgment, and meaning-making.
Because in an AI world, the leaders who matter most wont be the ones who rely on the smartest machines.
Theyll be the ones who remember in wisdom what it means to be human while using them.
If you walk into a grocery store in the Netherlands or Germany, you might not realize youre being steered toward plant-based protein, from vegan tortellini to plant-based yogurt. But across Europe and the UK, major retailers are quietly driving that shift. And theyre seeing results at a time when plant-based sales are struggling in the US.
Lidl, a budget supermarket, grew UK sales of its private-label plant-based line by nearly 700% from 2020 to 2025. In Germany, France, and Italy, plant-based retail sales are growing across multiple categories, with most of that growth coming from supermarkets own brands.
Lidl is one of several retailers with a deliberate strategy to nudge consumers away from meat and dairy and toward plant-based food. In the Netherlands, major supermarkets now have an ambitious target: by 2030, they’re aiming for plant-based protein sales to outweigh animal-based food, in a 60-40 split.
Meat (left) and plant-based meat (right) on display at a Lidl market. [Photo: Lidl]
Climate is the biggest motivation. As grocery stores look at their own carbon footprintsdriven by policies like the EUs climate reporting rulesnearly all of the impact comes from food production in their supply chains. And nearly half of those emissions come from meat and dairy.
Its hugethis is the biggest lever for a retailer in terms of reducing the climate impact, says Joanna Trewern, director of partnerships at ProVeg International, a Berlin-based nonprofit that advocates for grocery stores to prioritize plant-based protein.
In the Netherlands, where stores have gone farthest to adopt new strategies, the organization co-founded a working group that helped retailers plan the transition. The Dutch government also issued a policy paper saying that the population was consuming more protein from animal sources than they should for a healthy dietthe opposite of the new dietary guidelines in the U.S.
Stores have taken several steps to boost plant-based sales. First, since the cost of plant-based alternatives is still a barrier, theyve built up their own low-cost, private-label offerings. A core element of our strategy is ensuring that plantbased foods are just as affordable as animalbased alternatives, a spokesperson for Lidl Netherlands told Fast Company. At Lidl, the prices of our plantbased staple items are already equal to or even lower than their animalbased counterparts. This price parity ensures that cost is never a barrier for customers who want to make a more sustainable choice.
Lower costs are critical for plant-based protein to grow, and private label products offer the biggest opportunity, Trewern says. “Retailers have more control over ingredient sourcing, it’s easiest for them to scale, and there’s more they can do in terms of price and investing in categories to bring the price down for the consumer,” she says.
As plant-based sales have grown, Lidl keeps adding more products to its range. That includes more traditional plant-based protein, like tofu or chickpea-based products. The initial innovation in this space was very focused on convenienceproducts that really mimic meat, says Trewern. Now what were seeing is consumers are looking for something else. Thats led a lot of people to say plant-based is not doing well, the categorys failing. Actually, what were seeing now in many European countries is theyre starting to come back and the category is consolidating with a different type of product. More clean-label, whole-food product sales are going up massively. (Sales of tofu and tempeh are also growing in the U.S., though in both locations, they’re still a small fraction of overall plant-based meat.)
[Photo: Lidl]
Some stores are also offering new hybrid products. Lidl was the first to start selling a partly plant-based burger60% beef, 40% pea proteinthat tastes like beef but is priced lower than its regular ground beef and has a much lower carbon footprint. The store has also cut back on promotions on meat; twice a year, it makes sure its promotional flyers are meat-free and feature plant-based products instead. It’s also tested other strategies, like placing vegan meat next to animal-based products in the meat aisle.
Partnerships with other brands can also help. The French retailer Carrefour worked with manufacturers like Danone and Unilever to bring new plant-based products to market, and met its original sales target seven years ahead of schedule. “Real behavior change happens when retailers and manufacturers work together to deliver products people love that reach price and taste parity with conventional options,” says Abby Sewell, corporate engagement manager at the Good Food Institute, an American nonprofit focused on the industry.
The work can’t guarantee on its own that plant-based protein sales always growcountry-wide sales dipped in the Netherlands in 2024, for example, while some other markets expanded. But it’s a useful tool. In the U.S., supermarkets don’t yet have similar goals and strategies. And the growth of private-label brands offers more evidence that price is key.
There’s still a large opportunity for more affordable, better-tasting products; almost three-quarters of American consumers are open to eating more plant-based food. “U.S. consumers say the most important factors that would make them more willing to eat plant-based meat are if it tasted better and was more affordable,” says Jody Kirchner, associate director of market insights at the Good Food Instiute. “This is an opportunity for the plant-based meat industry to continue to evolve and position itself for the next wave of growth.”
“Weve seen this before with electric cars and solar panelsearly hype, a dip, then a return to growth,” Kirchner adds. “With the right investment and innovation, plant-based meat can find that same curve.”
Corporate culture isnt built by policies. Its built by momentsthe unscripted experiences that catch us off guard, bring us closer, and quietly shape how we show up for one another.
But many efforts labeled culture-building, including onboarding programs, leadership retreats, and all-hands meetings, still feel like productivity theater: tightly scheduled and heavy on performance. Today, its worth asking whether that model has simply run its course.
Consider this: what if the future of culture-building isnt about managing people, but about designing experiences that allow people to feel something real together? What if awe, story, and shared creativity werent treated as indulgences, but as foundational elements of how trust, courage, and belonging actually form?
Beyond the Mission Statement
While leaders like to bring up the idea of team culture, few can describe what theirs feels like in practice. Thats because culture doesnt live in a mission statement or a values deck. It lives in the stories people tell when no one is watching. It lives in how they feel after a team gathering. It lives in the space between intention and lived experience.
The data reinforces this gap. Deloitte reports that only 23% of organizations believe their employees are strongly aligned with corporate purpose. Gallup finds that just two in ten employees feel connected to their companys culture on a daily basis.
These arent engagement or communication problems; they are failures of experience design. When culture is reduced to language and artifacts, it stays abstract. When its shaped through shared experience, it becomes something people carry with them.
Designing a Culture People Can Actually Feel
Imagine replacing a traditional all-hands meeting with a creative exercise in which each team member contributes a visual expression of what matters most to them at work. Or imagine a leadership offsite that trades breakout rooms for a story circle, where leaders share pivotal moments that shaped how they lead today. People may forget the fourth bullet on slide 37, but they remember the moment they felt genuinely seen. Thats where culture actually forms.
Across my work with teams and leaders ranging from early-stage companies to established organizations navigating change, the most durable cultural shifts dont come from tighter processes or clearer messaging. They come from intentionally designed experiences built around three elements humans have relied on for connection long before modern organizations existed: art, ritual, and awe. These lay the grounds for emotional experienceswhich can determine trust, risk-taking, and follow-through.
Art as a Medium for Meaning
When teams create something togetherwithout relying on wordshierarchies soften, safety increases, and unspoken dynamics surface naturally. Art invites play and perspective, two capacities most workplaces quietly suppress.
At a recent leadership offsite, I facilitated a collaborative art experience where each participant expressed a core value visually, without explanation. What emerged was more than a collective artwork; it was a shared mirror. People recognized one another in new ways. Long after the offsite ended, the exercise continued to shape conversations. Art creates space for truth to surface without requiring debate or performance.
Ritual as Emotional Architecture
Ritual has a way of slowing us down and signaling significance. Simple, intentional gesturesopening a meeting with a shared intention, closing an offsite with a moment of gratitude, marking transitions with presenceturn routine interactions into moments of coherence.
In my Campfires of Connection work, gatherings begin and end with ritual: lighting a fire, sharing a single word, or pausing together in silence. These gestures dont demand belief or explanation; they communicate something more fundamental: this moment matters.
One of my clients began opening weekly meetings with a 60-second pause and a single prompt: What are you bringing here today? Over time, that slight shift deepened trust more effectively than any formal team-building program. Ritual isnt soft; its the emotional structure. It creates the container in which change becomes possible.
Awe as a Catalyst for Connection
Modern workplaces are loud, fast, and cognitively overloaded. Many people arent disengaged because they dont care; theyre overstimulated and starved of wonder. Awe interrupts that pattern. It resets the nervous system and expands perspective.
In one of my facilitation sessions, participants were invited to sketch places from their childhood and share the stories behind them. The drawings were simple and imperfect, yet deeply personal. As each was revealed, the room changed. Colleagues who had known one another only through polished professional roles suddenly encountered one another as whole people with layered histories.
That collective pause created a sense of awe. These moments dont happen accidentally. Theyre carefully designed to allow people to encounter something beyond their roles. In environments driven by metrics and deadlines, awe reminds us why collaboration matters and why people choose to stay, contribute, and stretch together rather than simply comply.
When Culture-Building Falls Flat
To understand why this approach matters, it helps to consider the alternative. I once observed a leadership retreat that checked every conventional box. The agenda featured well-known speakers, the breakout sessions were smartly facilitated, and participants left entertained, informed, and exhausted. But within weeks, nothing had changed. The retreat generated momentum but not meaning.
What was missing wasnt effort; it was emotional resonance. There was no moment when people could set aside the performance of leadership and engage with one another more honestly. The experience was efficient, but forgettable.
Months later, a much smaller intervention with the same group, a single evening structured around reflection, had a disproportionate impact. Leaders spoke openly about uncertainty, named tensions they had been avoiding, and listened without trying to fix or impress. That evening reshaped how they worked together more than any previous retreat had. Culture doesnt shift because information is delivered; it shifts when people feel something together that changes how they see one another.
For leaders designing their next team gathering, the most useful questions may not be logistical at all. What do we want people to feel when they leave this room? What truth needs space to surface here? What has been rushed past that deserves reverence? What might become possible if we slowed down just enough to let meaning catch up?
The organizations people love working for arent those with the slickest branding or the most polished values decks. Theyre the ones where people leave a meeting or retreat feeling more alive, more trusted, and more willing to take risks together.
Our capacity to juggle several tasks at once is among the most important capabilities of the human cognitive system.
Just consider a typical day in the life of a modern human: you glance at your phone while waiting for coffee to brew, skim headlines while half-listening to a podcast, mentally rehearse a client pitch while walking your child to school, reply noted on Slack during a meeting while updating a slide deck, check your bank balance while standing in line, and, in a moment of entirely optional productivity theatre, scroll through a friends Facebook feed to see what their cat had for breakfast (admittedly, not the most important addition to our already heavy repertoire of multi-tasks).
If these familiar episodes of multitasking barely register as effort, it is because they have been absorbed into habit, woven into the fabric of daily life, quietly showing how often we coordinate competing goals, priorities, and impulses at once. For all the noise about AI agents, it is worth remembering that human agents remain remarkably capable.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
That said, generative AI and AI agents add yet another layer of temptation to multitask, and a respectable excuse for doing so. Now we can draft an email while an agent prepares slides, ask a chatbot to summarize a report while we skim LinkedIn, generate code while answering Slack, or prompt three models at once while half-editing a memo. This feels like augmented productivity, but often becomes cognitive diffusion or an increase in work intensity. As I illustrated in I, Human, when machines take over fragments of thinking, we become supervisors of many shallow streams rather than authors of one coherent argument. The result is not just intellectual sloppiness, but a steady erosion of focus, as attention shifts from solving a problem to managing tools that promise to solve it for us.
A bad rap
To be sure, multitasking tends to get a bad rap, especially among cognitive psychologists and behavioral scientists. This skepticism is well grounded. In a widely cited meta-analysis, researchers showed that alternating between tasks produces measurable switch costs in both speed and accuracy, even when tasks are simple. Subsequent research also found that heavy media multitaskers performed worse on tests of attention control and working memory, suggesting that frequent task-switching may erode the very cognitive filters that make focus possible. A more recent synthesis including examination of social media effects linked media multitasking during studying to significantly poorer academic outcomes. More recent neuroscientific evidence also shows that habitual multitasking is associated with reduced grey-matter density in regions linked to cognitive control, and some scholars have pointed out that multitasking deducts the equivalent of 10-IQ points from our performance and is therefore more debilitating than smoking weed (presumably minus the benefits or self-perceived creativity!).
Taken together, the evidence is rather compelling: multitasking is not a sign of superior efficiency but a tax on attention, trading depth for the comforting illusion of productivity. It makes us feel busy, sometimes even clever, yet especially for complex, analytical, or creative work it is usually worse than doing one thing well at a time, or learning to focus.
Supertaskers
And yet, that is not to say that we are all equally bad at multitasking. In fact, as in most areas of cognition, there are meaningful individual differences. A small but influential line of research has even identified a group sometimes labelled supertaskers.
In a dual-task experiment involving simulated driving and mental arithmetic, researchers identified a minority of participants who showed virtually no performance drop when handling two demanding tasks at once. These individuals tended to score higher on measures of working memory capacity and executive control (proxies for higher IQ), suggesting that cognitive resources, more than motivation or confidence, set the ceiling on multitasking ability.
Working memory is analogous to a computers RAM, in that it determines how many pieces of information can be actively held and processed at once. Individuals with greater working-memory capacity possess more cognitive bandwidth to manage competing demands, though the limits remain real for everyone. In line, studies consistently show that people with higher working memory capacity, stronger attentional control, and better fluid intelligence incur smaller task-switching costs. Working memory capacity predicts resistance to distraction, while Unsworth and Engle (2007) linked it to superior performance in complex attention tasks, and executive attention explains substantial variance in multitasking performance.
The role of personality
Unsurprisingly, personality also plays a role: most notably, traits linked to self-regulation and planning, such as conscientiousness, tend to buffer against the negative effects of multitasking, while impulsivity and related tendencies are associated with poorer performance. Broader Big Five traits such as extraversion, neuroticism, and openness show mixed effect, often influencing how people approach multitasking rather than how well they actually perform it. Even training and domain expertise matter. Air-traffic controllers, surgeons, and experienced gamers show reduced switching costs in their domains because practice automates sub-tasks, freeing cognitive bandwidth.
This does not mean that people know how good they actually are at multitasking. As in most domains of competence, the share of people who claim to excel far exceeds the share who truly do. In a classic experiment, researchers found that heavy media multitaskers rated themselves as effective jugglers of attention yet performed worse on tests of working memory and attentional control. The pattern echoes a broader principle from behavioral science, familiar from the DunningKruger literature: when a skill is poorly understood and rarely measured, confidence tends to rise as competence falls. Multi-tasking, like leadership or emotional intelligence, is easy to overestimate because busyness looks like effectiveness, and we remember the rare occasions when juggling worked, not the many when it quietly degraded our thinking.
Taken together, the evidence paints a nuanced picture. The average human is indeed a poor multi-tasker, especially when tasks are novel or cognitively demanding. But some individuals, by virtue of higher executive capacity (raw mental horsepower), disciplined habits, specialized training, and the right personality, are less bad at it. That distinction matters for leadership and talent assessment, because it reminds us that multitasking ability is not a universal virtue or vice. It is a measurable cognitive skill, unevenly distributed across people, and often confused with confidence, busyness, or the social theatre of productivity.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
If you have ever interviewed for a job, there is a non-trivial probability that you have encountered tricky or quirky interview questions. These are questions that are intentionally unexpected, abstract, or only loosely related to the actual requirements of the role. Rather than systematically assessing job-relevant skills, they are designed to surprise candidates, test composure, or signal creativity.
Interviewers often defend these questions as clever ways to evaluate problem-solving ability, cultural fit, or performance under pressure. The evidence tells a different story. Decades of research in industrial-organizational psychology show that unstructured, brainteaser-style interviews have low predictive validity. They generate noise, not insight. At best, they measure how comfortable someone is with improvisation. At worst, they measure how similar the candidate is to the interviewer.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Cases in point
To illustrate the point, here are some common examples, ordered from least absurd, or at least somewhat defensible, to most absurd:
1. What is your biggest weakness?Nominally job-related, though usually answered strategically rather than honestly. The only rational way to respond is to disguise a strength as a flaw. It is less a test of self-awareness than an audition for plausible humility.
2. Sell me this pen.Some relevance for sales roles, but still an artificial performance detached from real context. Popularized by The Wolf of Wall Street, it reinforces the myth that great sales is about fast talk rather than listening, diagnosing needs, and building trust.
3. Tell me about a time you failed.In principle, a legitimate behavioral question. In practice, often an invitation to narrate a carefully curated setback that highlights resilience, grit, and eventual triumph. It rewards storytelling ability more than learning agility.
4. How many tennis balls can fit inside a Boeing 747?A classic guesstimate puzzle meant to test structured thinking. Geeks may love it, but it predicts little beyond prior exposure to similar puzzles. If you want to measure cognitive ability, there are far more reliable and validated tools.
5. How many windows are there in New York City?Same logic, further removed from any realistic job task. For what its worth, large language models estimate the number in the tens of millions, depending on assumptions. Which illustrates the deeper point: if ChatGPT can answer it in seconds, why are we using it to judge human potential?
6. If you were an animal, which one would you be and why?A thinly veiled personality quiz. It feels like a BuzzFeed throwback disguised as talent assessment. The answer often reveals more about the interviewers projections than the candidates traits.
7. If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?A pleasant icebreaker masquerading as a values assessment. It doubles as a signaling exercise: how curious, cultured, contrarian, or provocative can you appear in under 30 seconds? Say Nelson Mandela and you signal virtue. Say Steve Jobs and you signal ambition. Say Machiavelli and you signal strategic depth. But say Stalin and suddenly the interview turns into a moral inquiry. Was that intellectual curiosity, dark humor, or deeply questionable judgment? The question reveals less about your leadership potential than about your risk appetite for reputational self-sabotage.
8. If you were a kitchen utensil, which one would you be?At this point, the exercise has drifted into sheer parody shows like The Office come to mind. Spoon suggests reliability. Knife signals edge. Spork implies versatility. The real variable being tested may simply be how badly you want the job, signaled by the fact that you havent just walked out of the room.
The science
So, what does the actual science of interviewing say?
First, there is evidence that some interviewers are not merely misguided, but derive a certain Machiavellian pleasure from putting candidates on the spot. Research on interviewer behavior shows that individuals higher in everyday sadism or dominance are more likely to ask stress-inducing or intentionally uncomfortable questions. In other words, the brainteaser may sometimes be less about assessing you and more about interviewers enjoying the deviant power dynamic.
Second, the predictive validity of unstructured interviews is consistently low. Meta-analyses spanning decades show that traditional, free-flowing interviews correlate only modestly with later job performance. The problem is not conversation per se, but inconsistency. Different candidates get different questions. Interviewers rely on intuition. Evaluation criteria shift midstream. The result is noise, bias, and overconfidence, and unfortunately, these issues often go undetected because of the subsequent confirmation bias or failure to admit mistakes by hiring managers. In essence, if an interviewer likes you, they will either continue to like you after you are hired or pretend you are doing a great job to avoid looking like a fool.
By contrast, structured interviews work. The formula is hardly mysterious: define the competencies that matter for the job; ask all candidates the same job-relevant questions; anchor evaluations to predefined scoring rubrics; and combine interview data with other validated predictors such as cognitive ability or work samples. Behavioral questions about past actions and situational questions tied to realistic job scenarios consistently outperform seemingly clever riddles and quirky brain teasers.
The role of AI
And then there is AI, not so much the elephant in the room as the bull in the china shop, already rearranging the furniture while we are still debating the seating plan.
In a world where candidates can rehearse flawless answers with generative tools, the theatrical interview becomes even more obsolete. Chatbots can generate polished responses to biggest weakness or sell me this pen in seconds. Ironically, the more predictable and formulaic the question, the easier it is to game. This raises the bar for employers: assessment must shift toward observable skills, simulations, job trials, and multi-source data.
This does not mean interviews become irrelevant. It means they must evolve. When information is abundant and answers are cheap, the premium shifts from rehearsed narratives to demonstrated capability. Instead of asking candidates what they would do, employers can observe what they actually do: solve a real problem, analyze a live case, critique a flawed strategy, or collaborate with a future teammate. AI can help candidates prepare, but it cannot fully fake sustained performance in a realistic simulation.
There is also a deeper irony. The very tools that allow candidates to polish their answers can help employers design better assessments. AI can assist in standardizing questions, generating competency-based scenarios, flagging bias in evaluation, and even predicting which interview questions correlate with outcomes. In other words, AI exposes the weakness of theatrical interviewing while simultaneously offering the tools to fix it. The real risk is not that candidates use AI. It is that employers fail to upgrade their methods accordingly.
In sum, the future of interviewing is not about trickier questions. It is about better design. The uncomfortable truth is that quirky interview questions persist because they are fun, easy, and ego-affirming. But hiring is too important to be left to entertainment. If organizations are serious about talent, they must replace improvisational theatre with evidence-based assessments, and have the humility and self-critical honesty to truly test the outcome of their decisions to acknowledge when they are wrong, and make an effort to tweak things and improve.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
The workplace presents a distinctive set of disclosure dilemmas, beginning with the strange fan dance of interviewing. We are trying to put our best foot forward; to convince our potential employer were a perfect fit and consummate professional, yet were asked, What are your weaknesses? and What are the biggest mistakes youve made? Even the seemingly laidback So, tell me about yourself can feel like a trap. Where should we start?
There has been a lot of buzz in recent years about the benefits of bringing your whole self to work. Theres some evidence for those benefits. Letting others see more of you than you might ordinarily show them forges bonds, including in the workplace. We saw this in the early pandemic, when hardened leaders suddenly turned into endearing softies the moment their toddlers mischievously ran into their home offices.
But for compartmentalizers who prefer to keep work and personal life separate, the bring your whole self to work movement can be something of a nightmare. For others, like me, its freeing. But this new terrain is filled with land mines, and it can be hard to know when youre going to step on one.
The question of how much of our authentic selves to share at work is a pivotal one. Its also a difficult one to answer. We want to share enough to feel understood and connected to others, but not so much that we alienate people or cause them to question our competence or our seriousness.
Making matters even more complicated, each workplace has its own culture and its own norms about the degree of self-disclosure thats deemed appropriate. That doesnt mean theyre clearly articulated, usually far from it. We must discover them. And by no means should everyone decide to simply conform to those norms; bucking them might be good not only for ones own happiness and engagement at work, but for the whole team and for society at large.
So how do we find the right balance? What are the trade-offs between being a little more open at work and keeping strict professional boundaries intact? How much backstage access can we give to our colleagues and our bosses without risking our workplace image?
Backstage versus Front Stage: transparency versus vulnerability
According to my colleague Monique Burns Thompson, who works closely with members of Gen Z, Todays generation craves a level of openness that is different from when I was a young professional. New York University organizational scientist Julianna Pillemers research suggests that revealing aspects of our backstage selves at work, when done thoughtfully, can help us build rapport and stand out in a good way. In workplace contexts, she recommends what Id call discerning authenticitya balancing act that involves giving colleagues some, but not total, access to our inner lives. When done well, Pillemer argues, it helps build trust and sparks more meaningful conversations. Over time, this kind of thoughtful openness can deepen workplace relationships, enhance collaboration, and even improve performance.
What does it mean to be discerningly authenticto be open in a thoughtful way? Pillemer specifies two types of backstage access. The first, which she calls transparency, involves conveying openness by giving people a window into your thoughts, beliefs, or preferences. For example, you might say, Ive always been more drawn to the creative side of things, even though Im technically in a data-heavy role. This kind of sharing can carry some riskespecially if your perspective is unpopular or unexpectedbut it generally offers only a glimpse beneath the surface.
The second level of access, which Pillemer calls vulnerability, goes deeper and carries more risk. It involves sharing potentially sensitive inner states such as intimate emotions, especially negative oneslike admitting that you feel insecure about public speaking or disclosing a disability that might lead others to underestimate you.
For instance, someone might say, I get nervous presenting in front of senior leadership, even when I know the material cold (revealing a performance-related insecurity), or This kind of ambiguity is tough for me. I like having more structure, and Im trying to get more comfortable with the gray area (revealing a trait that might not align with organizational norms).
One shortcut I find helpful is to think of transparency as cognitive openness and vulnerability as emotional openness. In contexts where impressions really matter, the line between transparency and vulnerability becomes a strategic one. Pillemer doesnt draw a hard line, but she emphasizes that vulnerability is riskierespecially in high stakes, evaluative settings like job interviews, where disclosing insecurities might chip away at perceptions of competence. If in doubt, transparency is the safer bet.
Vulnerability should generally be avoided in those contexts unless, say, its framed as a story of growth or overcoming a challenge (I used to struggle with public speaking, so I joined Toastmasters). Even when youre explicitly invited to share something personallike in the dreaded tell me about a weakness questiontransparency often does the trick. You might offer cognitive openness: I think better in writing than I do speaking off the cuff. You could also frame it as growth: Ive learned to prep more deliberately for meetings so I can articulate my ideas clearly in real time. But if you give me a moment to organize my thoughts, Ill always bring sharper insight.
This kind of thoughtful disclosure lines up with what Pillemer would call transparency: revealing how your mind works in a way thats candid but not risky. Vulnerability, by contrast, might involve admitting that you often doubt your abilities or fear being judgeddisclosures that could raise red flags unless carefully framed. Still, even in high-stakes settings, being a bit more open can help.
From Revealing: The Underrated Power of Oversharing by Leslie John published on February 24, 2026 by Riverhead Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright 2026 by Leslie John
Youre interested in AI but youre human: Youve got emails to answer, deadlines to meet, and you dont have 40 hours a week to sift through academic papers on large language models.
You just want to know whats happening, why it matters, and maybe how to use it to get home a little earlier.
In that spirit, here are five AI podcasts to help you get smarter and stay informed without wasting your time.
The AI Daily Brief
For the busy professional who needs the headlines fast, theres The AI Daily Brief. Its usually about 20 minutes, which is perfect for the commute or while youre brewing that second pot of coffee.
Host Nathaniel Whittemore does a great job of cutting through the noise, but he doesnt just read the news. He analyzes what the big moves by OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft actually mean for the rest of us.
AI for Humans
AI for Humans is for the “rest of us” who just want to have a good time learning.
Hosted by Kevin Pereira and Gavin Purcell, this show is exactly what it says on the tin: AI news and tools explained by two guys whove been in the tech and media world forever but dont take themselves too seriously.
They demo new tools, they crack jokes, and they make the whole “impending robot takeover” feel a lot less scary. If you want to keep up with the latest without feeling like youre sitting in a lecture hall, give this one a shot.
Practical AI
If youre looking to actually get stuff done, check out Practical AI.
The name says it all. Hosts Chris Benson and Daniel Whitenack aren’t here to wax poetic about the singularity. Instead, they talk about real-world applications.
They interview people who are actually shipping AI products and solving real problems. Their podcast is accessible enough for enthusiasts but technical enough to be useful if youre trying to implement this tech in your business.
The Artificial Intelligence Show
For marketers and business leaders, The Artificial Intelligence Show is required listening.
Hosts Paul Roetzer and Mike Kaput from the Marketing AI Institute were beating the AI drum long before ChatGPT showed up.
They look at AI through a business lens: How does the latest news change your career? How does it change your company? If youre in marketing or management and youre trying to figure out how to navigate the next five years, youd be crazy not to listen.
Eye On AI
Eye On AI is a podcast for anyone interested in seeing the bigger picture.
Hosted by longtime New York Times correspondent Craig S. Smith, this one slows things down a bit. Its biweekly, and the interviews are deep.
Smith talks to the researchers and people building AI systems to better understand the “why” and the “how.” Its less about the “tool of the week” and more about understanding the fundamental shifts in the technology. Its a great weekend listen when youve got a little more headspace.
American statesman and polymath Ben Franklins legacy includes inspirational quotes on frugality, honesty, and hard work. Hes less frequently thought of as an icon of successful aging. But as doctor and author Ezekiel Emanuel recently pointed out on Big Think, At a time when the average age at death was under 40, he lived to 84, fully mentally competent all the way to the end.
That makes the founding father a worthy source of advice on aging well. Whats the biggest lesson we can learn from him.
Unsurprisingly, given he lived at a time when dentures were made out of wood and surgery was done without anesthesia, Franklin cant teach us anything about the latest aging breakthroughs.
But he can remind us of a fundamental truth thats thoroughly backed up by modern science, but still frequently forgotten: Staying useful is as important to aging well as any fancy new drug, fitness routine, or diet plan.
Ben Franklins secret to healthy aging
Ben Franklin was 70 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, and he churned out inventions into his eighties. (Those include inventing bifocals to solve his own issues with failing eyesight). That might leave you with the impression that he was a work-until-you-drop kind of guy. But Emanuel points out thats not actually how Franklin understood his own life.
Franklin invented retirement for working-class people, Emanuel insists. He made enough as a printer that he could retire at 42, and he said, Im going to live a life of leisure.
That means everything that followed the ending of Franklins career as a printer, including much of his work helping to found the University of Pennsylvania and the United States, were technically retirement hobbies.
His golden years didnt look anything like the golf, pickleball, or Caribbean cruises many of us dream about today. But that, Emanuel stresses, is the central wellness lesson we take from Franklins long and exceptionally productive life.
Leisure, for Franklin, didnt mean going to the Jersey Shore. It meant that he didnt have to worry about business and making money. He could focus on doing good, and for him, doing good was science and social improvement activities, Emanuel says. Not contributing to society is not good for the soul. You have to be useful. You have to try to make the world a better place. Thats key to wellness, too.
What modern psychology says about purpose and aging
About 275 years ago, when Franklin stepped away from his first, moneymaking career, he understood that the key to aging well was to find purposeful ways to use his newfound leisure time. Thats a simple enough insight. But research suggests that even today a great many of us fail to remember it.
Research out of Insead, the European business school, shows that many successful entrepreneurs struggle after exiting their businesses with big paydays.
It is perfectly normal to discover that life post-financial freedom isnt as happy as one might have expected it to be, the researchers noted. The most common reason for these problems is a sense of aimlessness and boredom.
Studies of retired Japanese salarymen and personal commentary from many who have pursued the popular Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) movement point in the same direction. Many of us dream of wide open days after leaving the world of work. But when confronted with the reality of long stretches of unstructured time, unless people have many explicit plans to stay useful, they tend to spiral.
And not just emotionally. Neuroscience research has found that a sense of purpose helps delay dementia. Its absence, on the other hand, can speed cognitive decline. Meanwhile, an absolute mountain of studies testified that one of the best ways to look after your own wellness is to find ways to help others.
A Google founder and the Governator agree
It can be tempting to think of retirement in terms of numbers. If you have enough saved, your later years will be comfortable and stress free, and therefore healthy and happy, too. But even billionaires seem to flail in retirement unless they, like Ben Franklin, figure out how to continue to contribute to society.
Sergey Brin is worth a cool $200 billion or so. He unretired and went back to work at Google because, he says, I was just kind of stewing and . . . not being sharp. Bill Gates is another guy with no financial constraints, but he, too, has written about how post-work life presents a lot of time to fill and that people need a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
On the other hand, action star turned Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger credits his peace of mind at the age of 78 to a simple life motto: Stay busy. Be useful. Thats basically Ben Franklins whole approach to aging well boiled down to four snappy words.
Healthy aging wisdom thats stood the test of time
So if youre in the market for some good advice on how to stay mentally and physically health for as long as possible, you could look to wellness influencers and tech bros chasing immortality. But all their dubious routines probably wont buy you nearly as many healthy years as Ben Franklins straightforward 275-year-old wisdom.
If you want to age well, stay useful.
By Jessica Stillman, Contributor, Inc.com
This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister website, Inc.com.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
The fleeting nature of the Olympic Winter Games makes them all the more alluring. The scarcity is almost sacred. Competitors work their whole lifetimes for one shot at glory that takes place over a period of just a few weeks.
To celebrate every athletic achievement at the XXV Olympic Winter Games, the closing ceremony will take place Sunday, February 22. Heres everything you need to know including how to tune in.
Where will the Milano Cortina Olympic Closing Ceremony take place?
Just like William Shakespeare intended, its fair in Verona where we lay our scene. The Milano Cortina Closing Ceremony will be held at the Verona Arena, which many historians believe predates the Colosseum.
Unlike the opening ceremony, which took place in multiple venues, this is the sole location. Verona lies about halfway between Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo, the two cities where the majority of the competitions took place.
What is the theme of the Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony?
The theme of the closing ceremony is Beauty in Action.
While exact details of the two-and-a-half-hour event are always kept under wraps for the element of surprise, it is known that the event will celebrate the host country, Italy.
It will also convey climate changes impact on the games and the future challenges this brings. Elements such as music, dance, film, design, and technology will all be utilized to tell these stories and celebrate the games.
Who is performing at the Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony?
The first performer announced was ballet star Roberto Bolle. He is a principal dancer at La Scala Theatre Ballet and frequently performs as a guest artist around the world.
Joining him is singer-songwriter Achille Lauro. He made a name for himself in the hip-hop world but also excels in other genres of music like pop and rock.
Actress Benedetta Porcaroli will also take part in the closing ceremony. She is best known for her work as Chiara in the Netflix series Baby. Additionally, her film credits include Immaculate, The Leopard, and The Kidnapping of Arabella.
DJ Gabry Ponte is planning on dropping some sick beats. He gained prominence as a member of the group Eiffel 65. He even has his own record label, Dance and Love.
Who is hosting the 2030 Winter Olympics?
Another important part of the closing ceremony is handing over the flag to the next host.
The 2030 Winter Olympics will take place in France. The French Alps are already planning for another spectacular competition that will be here before we know it.
How can I stream or watch the closing ceremony?
The ceremony takes place on Sunday, February 22. If you want to catch the action in real time, turn on NBC or the streaming service Peacock at 2:30 p.m. ET.
If that time doesnt work with your schedule, there will be another chance to see the pageantry during prime-time, beginning at 9 p.m. ET.
You can watch NBC for free if you have an over-the-air antenna or a traditional cable subscription.
Peacock is a paid subscription service, but if it’s not part of your streaming arsenal, you can turn to a live-TV streaming service that carries NBC.
YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, or fuboTV carry NBC in most areas. Just make sure to double check before you sign up to account for regional differences.
