Pivot - Fish and Chips and Biden and Harris and Reddit and Twitter

Episode Date: July 5, 2019

This week, Kara calls in from London! In addition to their excitement for the Women's World Cup, Scott and Kara talk about Zuckerberg's Aspen interview, the Democratic primary debates, and Twitter's decision to label politicians’ tweets that violates its terms of service. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London and beyond and see for yourself how traveling for takes forever to build a campaign. Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you,

tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Get started at HubSp president. That sounds great. You sound better than Beto, your boyfriend Beto, who really screwed up. We'll just be discussing that in a minute. I'm in London right now. I just had a delicious lunch of fish and chips, which were fantastic.

It's the only thing I hope these people in London can do well because I hope they lose at soccer. Sorry to say, even though I can't stand sports, I do like this game because it's being helmed by my lesbian icon, Megan Rapinoe. Thank you. Your lycon, as I call her? Your lycon? Lycon, yeah. She's part of the militia, she's our general. Listen, let's talk about the topics this week. I'm here in London just to do, I did a very good podcast with Carol Cadwallader, the head of Pearson, all kinds of stuff here. But let's get into the stuff this week. Sports, this is the big thing. I think it's tonight. The U.S. team is playing the British team, and it's the big time for women's soccer, and it's going all over the Twitter and all over the internet, especially because of its captain, Megan Rapinoe's fight with Trump, who then fought back. Thoughts on this?

What's going on? Well, first off, I think you're blessed, and that is to be in a European city in the midst of a world-class football match. It really is an amazing experience. I was in World Cup in London last year. London, by the way, second-best city in the world, a wonderful city. But to be there with a big match, especially with one of their teams, I don't know where you're going, but they just, the Europeans really do soccer right. And it's just a ton of fun to see the city come alive. Anyways, I think it's great. I'm going to a bar where I hope to get beat up by British people after we win. That's my plan. That's my big plan for the day. That's an image. I feel sorry for them. Yeah, me too. So look, the controversy here is obviously the discrepancy, the pay gap, right? And the controversy here is obviously the discrepancy, the pay gap, right?

Yeah. Mm-hmm. And the question I would have, and I'm generally asking this to learn, not to comment because I don't know the answer, but in the 90s and the 2000s, Julia Roberts was the highest paid actor in the world. Right. And in the 80s and 70s, Billie Jean King showed a lot of leadership and said, as a percentage of the revenue we create in women's tennis, we're getting a lower percentage of that revenue trickling down to us relative to the men. And she helped start a movement to change that. My question about women's soccer and the controversy over pay, is it a function of the fact that it just generates a lot less money or are they indeed being paid less as a percentage of the revenue they produce relative to men? I think one of the things is generating interest in it is important. And I think this team, as the last team, I think it was, what, 25 years ago? Whatever, the last team that generated a lot of attention. It was a different time from a media perspective, from an internet perspective. And it would be interesting to see what happens, especially if this U.S. women's team win, how much that will change things. Because obviously, the world is interested in soccer, whether it's men's or women's. But in the U.S.,

the interest in soccer has waxed and waned, essentially. And so in a different media environment, which includes the use of the internet, which Captain Megan Rapinoe and other players use, it'll be interesting to see how much attention they can get and how much watching and how much pays for broadcasting and stuff like that. I think it all links into how much broadcasting pays for these things, correct? Yeah, it's all about TV. TV is what generates the majority of the revenue. But look, at the end of the day, it's both great teams. It's fantastic that we have somebody who's a great spokesperson for America and for the team. And I'll be on a plane tomorrow back to the U.S. so I can go to Trump's, you know, victory party on the mall, which used to be called the Fourth of July. Actually, I'm not going to Washington. But one of the things that got a lot of attention this week besides his trip to North Korea, et cetera, was the debates. Everyone wants us to talk about the debates. I'd love to get your take on what you think went down. Well, so, you know, we make a lot of predictions and we made a couple of political predictions, I think seven and four weeks ago. And one of them was that ageism

and sexism we're going to set in and that Biden and Sanders, we're going to seed, or this is my prediction, we're going to seed, share to Beto and Michael Bennett, who I'm I'm a big fan of. And that has not happened. You actually felt that I know you're a fan of Kamala Harris and you were early were right on the ageism part. We were wrong on the sexism part. And that is the two front runners are, if you think of a momentum as a front runner, and I think at this point, momentum is even more important than your number. The two candidates with the most momentum are kind of substance, Elizabeth Warren, Professor Warren, which is awesome to see an academic and actually offering substance as a means of gaining traction and progress. And then Senator Harris, who wasn't afraid to take on Biden. And it almost felt like you could literally see we talk about the torch being passed.

It was almost as if the torch wasn't passed. It was literally as if she reached across the stage and grabbed it from Joe Biden. Right. A hundred percent. It was it was interesting because it looked like a big setup that he didn't see it coming was fascinating to me. It was really fascinating to me. But what was interesting about her is that she's had a hard time breaking out, especially, you know, in this sort of Internet centric quickness. She's much more it's harder to get a feel on her immediately. I think what was great about that debate is they had these moments you could pull out, like she understood the snackable, I hate to use that term because I hate it,

but politically snackable moments that everyone could see all the good aspects of her. And she's done it before in hearings where she attacks, you know, Kavanaugh or whoever, because she's a prosecutor. She's very good at that at moments. And then adding in a little bit of a meme around that little girl was me added to it. And I know it sounds cooked, but I think you have to think about that when you're making anything today, you know, when you're making ads or you're making whatever. And she effectively did that. And he was caught flat footed on a topic he should have known was coming from someone on that stage. And obviously she would be the obvious person to do it. But I think she did it super effectively, very pithy, very fast, a lot of meme generate. It just was really well.

Whoever choreographed that for her, I thought, really understood the internet to me. It seems like, you know what I mean, really understood how to make that into a bigger deal than it might have been before. So as a general rule, and you and I are on CNBC a lot, whenever you're on short form media and when you're on the debate stage with nine other candidates, it's by virtue of the construct of short form media. The lesson I didn't learn until a few years ago in general communication strategy is one, you have to have a series of talking points. And regardless of the question they ask you, you blurt out those talking points. And so it's that old attitude, you answer the question you want to ask. And was herurt out those talking points. And so it's that old attitude. You answer the

question you want to ask. And was her response or her going after Joe totally cooked and pre-planned or was it very effective? The answer is yes. And he wasn't sharp on his feet. He could have retorted, Senator, I don't think you're a racist either. And by the way, one of us decided to prosecute cohorts that are largely consistent people of color. And one of us decided to prosecute cohorts that largely consist of people of color, and one of us decided to defend them because he was actually a public defender. She was a prosecutor, but he was just sort of – he's kind of playing not to lose at this point, and that's never a winning strategy. But what will be very interesting about Senator Harris is you're right. When she has people preparing her questions and she's in charge, she's the prosecutor or she's the person at a Senate hearing, she's excellent. What will be interesting is that when she's on the debate

stage and people start questioning her and she has to be quick on her feet. We haven't seen that yet. Yeah, absolutely. I think it'll be interesting. One of the complaints about her is, especially in this age, and I think, again, Alexandria Ocasio does this well, Trump does this well, she's got to come across as a person, though she is a person you know what i mean a warmer that little girl was me was perfect was like dead perfect and it would also apply it was also true which helped you know the situation but what was interesting is the backlash to it was equally used against her which was she's not an american black which was started i'm sure the russians started it i'm almost certain the russians started that and the idea that she was less than black, than African-American,

and then Trump retweeted it. I mean, the attacks were immediate and they were, you know, as many Democratic candidates called out, they were racist and misogynistic, both at the same time. And so it's interesting to see how quickly the Trump groups organized under, it's all run by Brad Parcell as far as I'm concerned, it's how quickly they respond to things and how quickly he got on Kamala Harris. She's not so good. He switched really quickly. And they're very good at that. It's going to be like that throughout this campaign is quick responses. The question is, does it affect voting at all? Or is it just a ridiculous, exhausting circus sideshow that we've gotten used to, essentially?

Well, what Senator Harris has to show that actually Senator Warren has demonstrated is that they can both clap. Senator Harris, I don't think, has shown the ability to clap back. And that doesn't mean she can't do it, but she hasn't had hot lights, whereas people have gone after Senator Warren for her policy plans, and she can take a part. She is very good on her feet. Yeah, so is Pete Buttigieg, your favorite guy. Oh, yeah. He's got to talk about...

After you left Beto. After you left Beto. I just want to say, I think that's a little cold of you, but move along. Well, Cara, I'm a whore, but I'm an expensive whore. I'm a Four Seasons whore.

Anyways, so I don't know what that has to do with Pete Buttigieg. Speaking of which, I want to switch something very quickly. There was a really interesting story about Martin Sorrell in the New York Times so I don't know what that has to do with Pete Buttigieg. I want to switch something very quickly. There was a really interesting story about Martin Sorrell in the New York Times. I don't know if you caught it, about him buying this company that does those twitchy ads. I forget the name of it. It's in Amsterdam.

I can't remember the name of it. Anyway, he's getting back in advertising. His whole thing is to be quick and twitchy and new and young and stuff like that. I don't know if you had any thoughts on this, given your area in media or not, but it was interesting. And he used to obviously run WPP, left under a lot of controversy. Any thoughts on that? So I know Sir Barton and I like him a lot and I don't see him on a regular basis, but I think he's like he changed the world of advertising. He was basically fired.

I don't think he was fired for anything. Yeah, it was, they said it was prostitutes, but then they didn't back it up. Right. And prostitution is legal in Britain. So I don't think he was fired for that. I think it was fired for being an asshole. And that is, he's a difficult man. How are you still working, Scott? There you go. You walked right into that. Thanks very much for that, Cara. Cara, I want to say love me, don't judge me in Spanish, but the words aren't coming. Anyways, I won't even mangle that language out of respect for my Latino brothers and sisters. You can't quit him.

Oh, come on. He's dreamy. That hair, that throat, he runs a lot. He's done. He's finished. The guy's got to have 2% body fat. Just like Game of Thrones, he's finished. 2% body fat.

Anyway, go ahead. Move along about Martin Sorrell. So Sir Martin, look, the guy, you don't want to bet against Sir Martin. And I think the company you're talking about is Media Monks. Yes, that's it. Out of Amsterdam, wherever it is. Amsterdam. And he's already started a company, a platform.

He's already taken it public. And you got to respect the guy who's in his 70s who gets kind of, I don't want to say like drawn and quartered in the public eye and says, you know what? Fuck that. I'm a gangster. I'm coming back. And I like that at his age. By the way, he had a kid at 71 or 72.

So this is a guy who looks in the mirror and sees a guy, you know, that's just past 31 or 32. And if you meet him, he's incredibly sharp, incredibly vibrant. I think that, again, he wasn't fired for what I would call a fireable offense. He was fired for being an asshole and a bunch of the people in his internal circle turned on him. And it was probably a good, I don't know, a good learning moment for him. But I think, Sir Martin, you don Publisys certainly did. He was like, he's old, late, and whatever. He's to old news, which is interesting. So what do you think is the new news? Is this idea of going after these kind of things like media monks and a good idea in advertising now? Do you have to, you know, he built up the modern ad agency and now that seems like a lumbering giant. Yeah, I don't think it's a great strategy because essentially the strategy of IPG, WPP, and Publiscy was they took lumpy human-centered businesses that weren't financeable. And that is they weren't institutional quality assets because if you bought a small agency and the three principles left after cashing the check, you ended up with an asset that was worthless. So they basically invented these onerous employment contracts. And because they pooled a group of lumpy assets, they were able to smooth out the earnings and create an institutional class asset. And that was owning eight agencies that go up and go down when they lose Ford or they lose Mitsubishi. As long as you can smooth out those earnings, you create an investable asset class. And he pioneered that entire notion and construct.

And the basic model for the last 30 years was they would come in and buy a company like my first company, Profit Brand Strategy, which is a brand strategy firm. We had term sheets from all of them at some point in our history. They buy you at 8 to 10 times. And then the marketplace gives WPP 12 to 16 times EBITDA. So it's basically an ARB deal. And there aren't that many buyers of these companies because they're very volatile. They're very human-centric. And he figured out a way to make them investable classes. Three big players emerged or four, IPG, Omnicom, Publiscy, and WPP. What I think you're going to see is a good bank, bad bank breakup of these

companies. And that is some of these companies, well, some of them have great assets. WPP has some great assets that are high growth, digitally centered. And then they have some assets, traditional agencies that are in structural decline that still spend off a lot of cash, but are cigars that are burning down. And I think what you're going to end up doing is the disposition of some of these assets will be accretive because typically what happens in a conglomerate structure is the marketplace finds the shittiest part of the business and assigns that multiple to the entire thing. So where you have some incredible businesses at WPP, they all get assigned the same shitty multiple of a communications business. So you're going to end up with a good bank, bad bank split of a lot of these companies. Investment bankers are going to make a lot

of money. Which one are goods and which one are bad? companies. Investment bankers are going to make a lot of money. Which one are good and which one are bad? Well, I forget. XAXIS and WPP, I forget the name. Taxis is a data company. And I'm mangling again. I'm mangling the word. But there are some digital assets within all of these companies that are really strong. Publici has Sapient Nitro, which is an outstanding digital agency. It would probably trade at a higher multiple, although they acquired it three years ago. If they spun it out again, it would probably be accretive to shareholders. So you're about to see a deconglomeration across communications. I think Martin's strategy, and again, I don't like to bet against Martin. Very few people have made money betting against Sir Martin.

But I think the old conglomerate model of rolling up these companies, I think the arbitrage has been squeezed out because the best assets that people realize they can get top dollar, especially the digital assets, because all these old companies are looking for digital assets to accessorize their analog outfits. So those companies traded a premium. So I don't think the conglomerate model moving forward works that well in communications. I think it's going to go the other way. All right. OK. So lastly, there's two things happening in social media related to Trump was Reddit quarantineined the biggest pro-Trump section of the site last week for hosting violent threats and violating the site's policies? And separately, Twitter said it would start labeling tweets from public figures that break its rules but leave them up. So they're sort of slowly moving into dealing with it.

But what do you think? I was just like, what? You're now going to label lies as lies? Or how are you going to do that? It just sort of created more problems. In terms of Reddit, I'm going to have Steve Huffman, who's the CEO on the podcast soon, the Recode Decode podcast. They've been doing a lot more. They have not just quarantined. They've moved down ugly things really deep into the thing a long time ago. So I feel like Reddit actually did start to address these things in a pretty smart way. Any thoughts on the Twitter

thing of labeling the tweets from public figures? I have a viewpoint, but what's your take on this and what's the response from these companies? What is the rationalization? If you can label something as a lie and not true, shouldn't you just delete it or prohibit it from ever being on your platform? Exactly. I mean, it was interesting. It was sort of like how they sort of slow walked into the Alex Jones thing. I remember being in meetings with all these people and I said, you're taking him down. And they're like, no, we're not.

We're just a platformer, benign platformer. I'm like, you're still taking him down. You'll see, it'll happen. You'll, it'll happen. And I, and it was really interesting how they clung to this until they didn't. And this seems like the same thing. They're slow walking this idea.

And I assume they're talking about Trump because he breaks his rules all the time. So what's going to be on it? Like another lie? Like another here's the facts? You know, I don't know. Are they going to link to like, this is the actual picture of the are they going to go back and do ones because he's done hundreds and hundreds of them that are lies? I mean, that's what I wonder, like what happens? And I think they can't figure it out. That's like, you know, the Washington Post has been doing this for two years, and it's 10,000 lies, many of which are on Twitter. And so, you know, the quarantining that Reddit's doing seems smarter because these are violent threats, and they just move it off. And they did that to another horrible site, a racist site on that site. And they moved, even though there's tons of crap in Reddit, they certainly moved it to places that were hard to get to and, you know, in a back of a back drawer. And I think that's the best they can, many of them can do if they want to keep these open platforms. And at the

same time, I'm not sure why they don't just say, take it down, like you said. I don't understand it. We're smart enough to have the nuance to determine it should be deprioritized, but we're not smart. It just doesn't make any sense. Just don't allow it. I think this is sort of a half measure that doesn't make any sense. These companies are coming to grips with the fact that they are media companies. They have to make judgment calls. But I don't understand. It's almost like if Fox or MSNBC started labeling certain segments as, okay, this is a little bit out there and we're stretching the facts. And they don't do that. They say, all right, we're either putting stuff up, we're going to stand behind or not. And so I don't understand the whole labeling thing.

I do have some sympathy around people always use the president's tweets as an example. And I've kind of come around to Twitter's view that he is a public figure. And the problem is if you were to ever, he's violated their terms of service. He should technically be kicked off the platform. But then somebody starts a Twitter feed that just has everything he says. Yeah, right. He is a public figure. You probably – he's different.

There is rationale for having him on there. I think at the end of the day, these guys are going to have to figure out, all right, we're going to have to employ again this incredibly expensive thing that every other media employs. And people. And just it's either on or it isn't. But labeling it, kind of truth meters, I don't know if that works. Yeah. I just did a good podcast with Carol Cadwallader who wrote the Cambridge Analytic story. She's from The Guardian here in London.

And one of the things she was saying is, look, in Germany, apparently one of seven people of the Facebook content matter is deal with Germany because there's laws in Germany that says they can't put stuff up. She goes, why don't they just hire more people and pay them well and give them good, you know, psychological help and et cetera, et cetera, make them employees like they can do it. They do it in Germany. And so it's a question of whether they want to do it, how much it costs and if they're forced to do so. And I think forced is the only way this is going to happen. Yeah, I enjoyed your pivot last week with Casey. I think that is really interesting reporting. And by the way, I realize that it's passive aggressive to always have guests on with great hair. Let's be honest. I don't know why you're angry at me, but stop it. I thought he's done some really interesting work around the PTSD that those guys are absorbing. Yeah, absolutely.

He does have great hair. And, you know, it's just the way it is. Yeah, there you go again. I saw your Twitter thing, which then Kathy Griffin stepped in to shut you down, as you saw. You want to talk about a guy scared? Yeah. When Kathy Griffin kind of addressed me in an aggressive way, I never even thought about Kathy Griffin before. I'm like, oh, my God, I am so scared of this person right now.

Well, Casey is her gay now. That's what she says. Oh, God. She's smarter and funnier than me. I just want to stay out of her way. You stay out of her way. We're going to have dinner with her. Don't worry. You always say that. There you go again. I also just got a text about this from my producer, Erica Anderson, who actually used to work at Twitter as well as Google,

saying they don't want to set a wrong precedent on the Twitter rules. What if the next president is a good one and people want to take him down? They are taking a longer-term view. Yeah, right. Long-term view. Speaking of long-term view, did you hear Mark Zuckerberg's comments at the Aspen Festival? Yes, I did. At the Aspen Ideas Festival. What did you think? I just, I can't. I can't even. You can't? It's just, he's just like blaming everybody else. I just wish he would take responsibility. It's really a small thing I ask of him. And it's just, it's constantly someone else's fault and someone else's to fix. What do you think? And you got to admire, there is a form of genius here, kind of the deflect and delay.

And that is, you know, we need help here. There's clearly a problem to address. So we're going to create this star chamber like council of people to advise us. And it reminds me of occasionally my wife gets so fed up with the kids and so exhausted. And they come up to her and say, can we play video games? And she finally goes, ask your father. And then they ask me and I say, sure. And then she gets angry. So she's tired enough to suggest that they asked me something and then I'm always wrong. This is the mother of all ask your fathers from Facebook. They're all, we'd rather not take responsibility. We want to delay and deflect. So we're going to create some

bullshit counsel, which by the way, on 60 seconds notice, Mark Zuckerberg could dissolve the moment he doesn't like what they decide. But it's an attempt to create sort of a bulletproof or somewhat of a bulletproof vest that says, oh, I see this is a problem, so I'm going to create a council. It'll take six months to figure out the rules. Let's get on that council, Scott. Let's get on it. That'd be fun. Get on there we just like torture them all day long with like sense and stuff like that it's interesting but i do think it's getting through to people my one of my sons i'm gonna say which one doesn't like being mentioned uh the one who doesn't like being mentioned he was he saw that i know which one that is i met them both videos and he was like it's so screwed up how they treated

them after putting them putting them and he was like videos of brutality killing animals and children it's so messed up facebook messes up and messes up again and trying to fix it they're How do they treat them after putting them? And he was like, videos of brutality, killing animals and children. It's so messed up. Facebook messes up and messes up again and trying to fix it. They're incompetent on every level. Even Google isn't this bad. And that's saying something. That's my son, which who never says anything.

So you can be affected when you read and recognize what's happening. So just saying. We get through to people, Scott. We matter. Anyway, let me go to the sponsor. And then we'll come back and talk about wins and fails and Scott's predictions. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle.

When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize?

What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together

to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Support for this podcast comes from Anthropic. You already know that AI is transforming the world around us, but lost in all the enthusiasm and excitement, is a really important question. How can AI actually work for you? And where should you even start? Claude,

from Anthropic, may be the answer. Claude is a next-generation AI assistant, built to help you work more efficiently without sacrificing safety or reliability. Anthropic's latest model, Claude Thank you. that puts humanity first. To learn more, visit anthropic.com slash Claude. That's anthropic.com slash Claude. Scott, wins and fails. Go. Wins and fails. Okay, so my win is the IPOs of The RealReal and Revolve. Yeah, tell me why. It's nice to see a couple of e-commerce companies punching through. The

RealReal is, I think, a fantastic example of organic intelligence, and that is using highly trained individuals that are, I don't know if they're well-paid, but I think they're adequately paid. They come into your house, they assess your closet, and it's a luxury positioning. And if there's a theme in e-commerce that's working, whether it's Chewy or Zalando, it's going after the brands that don't want to use Amazon as distribution. So the RealReal is this essentially incredible company that takes advantage of another trend, and that is monetizing fallow assets. Cards are utilized only 4% of the time. So Uber stepped into that void. Airbnb stepped into the void of apartments, monetizing them when you're not there. And RealReal has figured out a way to monetize probably hundreds of billions of dollars of not only just clothes but high-end fashion.

It's interesting because I posted the email, Julie Wainwright, who I've known since she covered Real.com. I think I knew her at Berkeley Systems. She's been through a lot of failed companies. She was at Berkeley Systems and then Real.com, which is a movie-watching company, which had the right idea at the wrong time. And then obviously is a movie watching company which had the right idea at the wrong time and then obviously pets.com which had the right idea at the wrong time and she you know she took that public was a big mess and then she kind of was on the outs and i remember seeing her right after and she was quite like oh what a mess and then came up with this idea and sent me an email about it in 2011 and i thought it was a brilliant idea at the time given you know how many clothes there clothes there were. But they really take it at this idea. And you're right, fallow things. Even more so, besides

reusing these, these are beautiful clothing. This is often very high level jewelry and clothing. I just was with a bunch of millennial women, and they all rent their clothes now, especially the nice ones, but all of them. And they're very getting into the idea of renting their clothes. They get four or five outfits. I think it's Rent the Runway has this new thing where you can Yeah. I think that's fascinating, the a little bit more if you take store credit. The stock popped 40% on the first day. And also, thank you for bringing up Julie because, and I think there's a lesson here, and that is if you have a failure like Pets.com, it's pretty easy to get stuck and never recover from that. And she kind of, success is really your perseverance over your failure or another way, your resilience. And clearly this woman, individual, has a lot of resilience because she must have been laughed out of a lot of venture capital offices showing up and saying, hi, I'm the former CEO of pets.com.

So good for her because that, it's an incredible company. Revolve, the other one, does a really interesting job with private label at the high end. Their price point is really high and they've great margins. What's interesting about them is they figured out a way to make money despite the fact that their return rate is 52%, which I thought was the most staggering statistic in their prospectus. But that's an interesting company that's launched a lot of their own private label brands. They have incredible data set, and it's just what I would call just behind the curve. So most high-end fashion brands try to be ahead of the curve and say, our merchant is a visionary in setting the tone. And then Amazon is well behind the curve looking at what's

sold best for the last seven or eight years and then propping that up to the top of the recommendation. Revolve has done a great job of taking data and being just behind the curve, and that is they break down the components of an item that's being purchased, whether it's large buttons or a certain color, and then use that to inform their merchandising strategy. And they have a very flexible agile supply chain, including manufacturing in Los Angeles and in China. And they're able to bring forward really sort of trend on merchandise that they translate to private label. They buy this stuff six months in advance and then lose them. You know what I mean? That's right.

Like lose if they make the wrong choice. Yeah, they do. So two companies breaking through at the high end, the place that Amazon has not been able to dominate. So those are my wins, Revolve and The RealReal. Fantastic. I do think clothing is going to be really interesting going forward. I feel like it really does start to begin to be like an Uber, like a rental. A lot of rental things. I had the CEO of Pearson talking about how there's no textbooks, everything's going to be rented. And not actual textbooks, but digital things. It was interesting. I think my win was the Wayfair walkout, which employees walked out of Wayfair.

Yeah. They had been selling beds to immigrant detention camps on the border in the response. The company donated $100K to charity, but everyone was still still mad and so now i like the idea that millennials are fighting back i don't know if it'll be effective it'll get traction but i like the concept of it that this this ceo was caught completely unawares and these people we don't want to sell to this what's going on there and obviously the fail is the customs and border patrol facebook page that is so vile it's's disgusting. It's disgusting, and I can't believe I'm paying the salaries of the people who were posting on this site because

they don't deserve to work. They don't deserve my money, and they don't deserve taxpayers' money for having these opinions. You can't hate the people that you're charged with protecting. You really are dealing with the things they said about immigrants were disgusting. And then, of course, the attacks on Congress people were scary and violent and strange, even if it's just sort of blowing off steam on Facebook. And I think Facebook should dump this group like it's just it's a hate group is what it is. gripes at work, but these gripes, the stuff that ProPublica, which did this story, put out, it's just appalling. And it's appalling that it's not taken down immediately, I think. So I thought that was, and I think the Republicans don't look into this. It'll just be, you know what has happened to this party, because it's really, no government employee should be able to express these opinions about the people that they're charged with dealing with. It just is not.

And especially Congress people, too. Anyway, those are my wins and fails. Do you have a fail? Yeah, you covered a lot there. But the detention facilities, I mean, some people have compared them to concentration camps. I don't think that's fair. What happened to Treblinka and Sobibor and Auschwitz was a different ballgame. But they are detention centers. And I feel as if we're in the land of frequent spills right now, and that is this beautiful carpet called capitalism and democracy in America. We're constantly creating new stains on this thing, and one of those stains is happening right now. Those detention facilities down at the border are shameful, and our kids are going to be really embarrassed. Would you call them internment camps? These words are fascinating. It's just these words are fascinating. Yeah.

Is it internment? Is it detention? I mean, they do feel like internment camps, right, where they are holding people against their will. The conditions are a lot of their basic dignity and human freedoms. And this comes down to resources and a certain level of humanity that we are not demonstrating at the border. It's really – it's just one of those things you know in 3, 5, 10 years, 20 years, we're going to just be really ashamed that we let this happen. You know, ironically enough, I went to, I took my son to the Anne Frank house this week in Amsterdam, which was really, it really affected him. It was great. It's very powerful.

He was coming back from a European trip. And I think I was really glad for them to see this. I think I was really glad for them to see this. This small story, obviously, Anne Frank, is a small story of one person, but she really has touched people all over the globe with the books and what happened to her in Amsterdam. And so it was really interesting. What was fascinating to me when I was there is they don't allow photography in it, in the place, because it's still the same house where these people were hiding for two years before the Nazis found them and took them away and they died at concentration camps. But not one person around the whole place, and all over Europe, everyone's with the phones. It's the same disease they have in the United States. But in this one area of Amsterdam, nothing, not one phone, not one, you know, it was really wonderful, actually, that people could pick their heads

up for a minute and pay attention to a very serious problem that we have today and always had. And it was kind of cool. That was a win. Yeah. So my fail? My fail is the Democratic Party. I think the debates were great. Great spectator sport.

Obviously, winners, Senator Harris and Senator Warren. Tater Sport. Obviously, winners, Senator Harris and Senator Warren. But I think the Democratic Party actually became less appealing to the majority of the voters we need in the middle to get Trump out of office. And that is, so as a progressive who considers themselves, you know, a lifelong Democrat, but who's also a white heterosexual male that doesn't speak Spanish and doesn't believe that illegal immigrants should all have a path to citizenship, I felt like basically the debate said, we're not your party. And I think when they all raised their hand and said, should every undocumented worker have a path to citizenship, I just thought that was ridiculous. There are so many people, including

my parents, who figured out a way to get here legally. And I'm not saying that someone who's been here for 10 or 20 years, who has been a decent contributor, who has kids here, should be deported. But the notion that we're going to say anybody who figures out a way to get here should have a path to citizenship is just an invitation to the billion or 2 billion people who would like to live in the US. And it also says to Americans and people who have immigrated here legally that, you know, we don't represent you anymore. And I think they're heading down a dangerous path. And there needs to be some nuance here. We invited 10 or 11 million undocumented workers. It was basically a flexible, inexpensive workforce for us. We knew they were coming over. They should be treated differently. But to basically say anybody who figures out a way to get here is going to be a citizen, that's just dumb and inviting an immigration crisis the likes of which we can't even imagine. So it felt to me like they were

basically saying to the people in the middle, we don't represent you. And I think they're headed down a very dangerous path. All right. Well, we'll see what happens with that. So let's get to predictions or your forecast, the Scots 101 forecast. So is that your prediction? Is that that's going to be a problem or do they have an ability to recover? Oh, it's still early. And they, you know, they all go hard left or hard right in the primaries, and then they all pivot to the center in the general election. But they've got to realize that the folks in the middle, and it's not Twitter. I don't think it's the people who are best on Twitter at the far left that are going to win this election. Now, granted,

they need to energize the base, but the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. And what we saw at the Democratic debate was that, in my view, again, the people that they need to win over, they're saying, we don't really represent you any longer. So I hope we see some centrist candidates emerge with a voice that's more indicative of where the majority of Americans are. So anyways, two predictions. My prediction is political. Basically, Sanders, I tweeted that what are the two consumer brands that are going to lose the most share over the next 30 days? It's going to be La Croix. The sparkling water is getting its butt kicked by bubbly of Pepsi brand, which is kind of, I realize it's a little bit esoteric, but this is the way my mind works. I love LaCroix. Don't talk. I love coconut. LaCroix?

Oh no, LaCroix's hemorrhaging market share, but also Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. I think that America is going to decide we don't want to replace, and this is a terrible identity politics and ageist, but I do think that America has decided that Bernie's time has kind of come and gone, in my view. And I don't think that Joe Biden, the third term of Obama, is going to have a ton of appeal. I think that their combined share of 50 or 60 points is going to decline 20 or 30 points. And we're going to see a new crop of nominees or contenders emerge. and it's already happening right it's interesting my boyfriend john conway as you know he's my boyfriend um was saying that's an image that's an image oh my god okay i'd pay good money to watch watch that relationship unfold he was saying and i think he made a very salient point that democrats tend to win when it's a young fresh person versus an older person all the older older people lose, which is interesting. I know that's ages, but that's when his point was correct. If you kick out a president after only one term in a good economy,

it's got to be for something totally different on almost every dimension. So Marianne Williamson it is. There we go. I thought, by the way, most search person- I don't got no problem with Marianne Williamson. Most search person on Google during the debate. She got more search volume than anybody. Everyone's like, wait, who is this? Who's this? What is going on here? What did she just say? Yeah, exactly. You know, the DNC has decided after trying to railroad or jam Hillary Clinton down everyone's throat that basically the primary was nothing but an attempt to kind of pretend that they weren't supporting Hillary Clinton. They've

decided they've gone the other way and they're letting total whack jobs on the debate stage. I mean, there's just no reason for her to be on the debate stage. She just shouldn't be there. I'm going to put her on podcast. I'm trying to get her for my podcast. I totally want to talk to her. I can see that. I can see that. I think Conway's a better grab though. I know. I'm trying. I keep- I'm trying to find what I find more disturbing. You in a romantic relationship— I like everything he does because I think he's really funny. I know I shouldn't. I know all my left-wing friends are like, how dare you? But I just think he's very sharp. I think he's sharp. I can like a guy. I'm trying to decide what's more disturbing, the image of you in a romantic relationship with George Conway or him in a romantic relationship with Kellyanne Conway, his wife. I find both of those things really rattling.

Let's go away. As usual, you bring it down to sex. Oh, my God. That's our C-SPAN channel. Famous politicians making out. I would pay good money for that. I would pay good money for that. And if you cancel, you have to watch Mitch McConnell and Michelle Bachman make out.

If you cancel, that's what happens to you. Don't go all London on me. This is very British. You're going down the British lane of like crazy stuff. I am so excited. You're in London during world-class soccer. That is an amazing time to be there. Life is so rich, Kara.

Enjoy it. Have some beer. I'm going to Boston then. I'm going to Vermont. I'm going to Vermont for the 4th of July. What are you doing for the 4th of July? You're not going to the Trump thing, going to Vermont for the 4th of July. What are you doing for the 4th of July? You're not going to Trump. Vermont for the 4th.

Presumably nobody is except for the base. I am, as always, embarrassingly without plans. I don't have any plans. I'm going to probably work. I've been away, so I need to work this entire week. On the 4th of July? You really should go down to the Trump thing because you need to see some tanks. I can't believe he's bringing tanks.

Oh, we're having a military parade. That's right. What the hell? Tanks. I don't even want to. I just, whatever. Anyway. Eisenhower, one of my heroes, said you should never have a military parade. We should celebrate our independence and our courage, but not with the industrial military complex. I'll be in D.C. next week after it's all over. In any case, Scott, I will see you soon because you'll be in D.C. You're coming down to D.C. Wait a second. We're going to see each other in a week. Yeah, I'm a little bit intimidated. And I appreciate you and your fabulous friends hosting, I think, for me. But they called me and said, who do you want to invite? I don't have a single friend in D.C. My invitation list is zero.

Bring you the people. And if George Conway is listening, you are totally invited. Leave Kellyanne at home, but you are invited. Well, actually, bring Kellyanne. I like it. Bring the Corgis, George. Bring the Conways. Come on over, Conways. Anyway, it. Bring the Corgis, George. Bring the Conways. Come on over, Conways. Anyway, it's a party for Scott. I'm not inviting anybody else online. But we're having a book party for Scott. And then we're going to tape our show.

And I actually also have a podcast with your friend, Michael Bennett. Senator Bennett. Yeah, nice guy. I'm counting on you. He's the man. He's the man. Make him look good. Actually, he'll make himself look good.

He's smart. I thought he was auditioning for my dad is what I'm doing. Anyway. He's the man. He's the man. Make him look good. Actually, he'll make himself look good. He's smart. He's smart. By the way. I'm doing it for my dad is what I'm doing. Anyway. Hold on. Quick moment of the debate. What about his moment where he said a medieval wall isn't a symbol that immigrants should see?

It should be the Statue of Liberty. And he talked eloquently about his mother-in-law who was separated from her parents during the Holocaust. I thought that was the most powerful moment of the debate. He also had a very powerful moment with Joe Biden saying your deal with Mitch McConnell sucked. It was and it was so smart. He did it so smart. He's a smart person and should have some cabinet position in a Democratic administration.

He would be an asset to the United States of America as in any kind of leadership capacity. Word, my sister. Now you're speaking my language. I still don't have the man crush you do. Anyway, Scott, I'll see you next week in D.C. We're going to go around. We're going to do some things. Maybe we'll go wander by the White House. I don't know the man crush you do. Anyway, Scott, I'll see you next week in D.C. We're going to go around. We're going to do some things. Maybe we'll go wander by the White House.

I don't know. We'll see. Anyway, Camila Salazar produced our show today. Nishad Kerouac is Pivot's executive producer. Thanks also to Eric Johnson and Eric Anderson. Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media. We'll be back next week from D.C. with another breakdown of all things tech and business. Make sure you're subscribed to the show on Apple Podcasts,

tune in or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you like this week's episode, which you already do, leave us a review. Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere and you're making content that no one sees and it takes forever to build a campaign? Well well that's why we built HubSpot it's an AI powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you tells you which leads are worth knowing and makes writing blogs creating videos and posting on social a breeze so now it's easier than ever to be a marketer

get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count with Klaviyo.

Learn more at klaviyo.com slash BFCM.