Pivot - TikTok Ban Fast-Tracked, Elon Pay Package Revived, and NPR Bias Accusations

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

Kara and Scott discuss the new plan to fast-track the TikTok ban bill through Congress, the debate over Caitlin Clark's WNBA salary, and Trump Media's questionable move into streaming. Then, Tesla is asking shareholders to reapprove Elon Musk's multi-billion dollar pay package, despite a judge calling it unfair back in January. Will Elon get his way? Plus, NPR and Google are the latest companies to get publicly called out by employees. How should employers handle criticism and pushback from within? Finally, a listener mail question about who really benefits from dual class stocks. Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. 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 data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Scott Galloway. I'm in Vegas.

Where are you? You're in Vegas? Yeah, I got here like at one in the morning. I'm leaving just as soon as I can. What are you doing in Vegas? You're feeding your gambling habit again. Feeding my gambling habit. Another book thing.

A book-related thing. Yeah. Still on that bestseller list, so I've got to stay there. Yeah, I've heard that. I've heard that about seven times a day in our little... Yeah. No, it's fantastic. It's very exciting.

This is how you say it. You're about to say... You're on everything. What are you talking about? You're on Rick Roll. You're on... Rich Roll. And by the way, I want to adopt that guy as my brother.

That guy has such a chill vibe about him. He does. He is kind of your guy, isn't he? And someday you're going to have that beard. I think you're going to have that beard. I don't have a good scruff. Really? Now, if you grew it forever?

No? Not like that. He's blessed. That guy is very handsome. That means he's virile, as they say. Virile. Yeah. He's got a really interesting story.

He was an addict, and he kind of, he was so sort of grateful to the community that he's built a bit of a media company around some of the principles of recovery. Yeah. And he just, he's just so soulful and so sincere. And he's really leaned into podcasting. He has this beautiful studio in Agoura Hills and he forces people to come out there. Oh, wow. But he does a great job.

I think it's really interesting. He's built a nice business. He's been doing it for 12 years. But you are everywhere. You're moving into the promiscuous stage of your book. Okay, you've banged the whole football team and you're accusing me of kissing more than one guy. Yeah, that's true.

Now, Scott, you're at the TED conference in Vancouver. How's it going? TED, I've never been here before. TED is wonderful. It's easy to sort of be cynical about it. First off, Vancouver is beautiful. It is. What a great city.

I haven't been here in 20 years. Last time I was here, we were checking out retirement places for my mom to retire. We came to Vancouver. It is gorgeous. It is, indeed. And the people are just super nice. It's a nice vibe. I enjoyed the talks. I was more nervous yesterday before my talk than I have been in a while because I really like Chris Anderson. And he's very good at making you feel

like you're going to make or break the conference. Oh, really? So I said to him, they gave me 12 minutes, which they claim is a long time. I said, I think I need 14 or 15. He looked me in the eyes and he's like, is it great? And I'm like, I think so. I hope so. He's like, take as much time as you need, as long as it's great. And he's like, you're the anchor swimmer in the session. So I was really nervous, but the talk went well and people are super nice. Yeah. I heard people were lining up for you and not Bill Ackman. I've gotten reports from all my spies. They said you were very good. Oh, thanks for that. Thanks for that. Yeah, Bill, I spoke after Bill and after Barry Weiss and also Andrew Yang. I was in this

session called provocateurs. Oh, dear. I'm like, we're not that provocative. We're more like milquetoasters of provocation. We're not that provocative. And they had this scientist who lives in extraterrestrials who's kind of adorkable. Oh, that guy. Yeah. It's really not. I need to get out more. The only problem for me with going out in the public is that the public is there. What did people come up and ask you about?

Well, okay, you know what's happening to me wherever I am. People are really generous and lovely. And that's one of the things. I'm a glass half empty kind of guy. People are so lovely in person that I can't get over how fucking cancerous and toxic online is. Because I would think that the world is just an awful place if I just looked at the comments around content online. People are so lovely in person. So whenever you speak and if you do okay, people line up to meet you and be nice and get photos with you. Every time now this happens, someone comes up and they look around for dramatic pause and then they have me sign your book. Oh.

And they think it's the funniest thing ever. They think it's the fun. They come up with a signature page open and a pen and then they look around for dramatic effect. And then they turn it around. They're like, it's Kara's book. Oh, that's nice. I'm just happy to be here. I'm having a wonderful time. Good. I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. We'll come to TED together.

I think you would love it here. They would love it. I've been there a hundred. No, they will not have me on stage. I've been there since the beginning. I used to go when Richard Gorman. You said that about Bill Maher and they keep inviting you back. I have never been invited to TED. Never. Chris Anderson will hear this and he will invite you

to speak next year. Doubtful. I will give you a doubtful Chris Anderson will not. We have a long history. I doubt it. Really? I love Chris. Yeah, I think he thought of us as a competitor at Code. I don't know. He came to Code. I'm happy. I spoke at a TEDx for sure, but that's organized by other people. Never will he have me on stage there. I'm telling you, spoke at a TEDx for sure, but that's organized by other people. Never will he have me on stage there. I'm telling you, they do a great job. I know they do. They do a great job. They do.

There's a whole patented TED patent kind of thing. I'd like to roll with you in Vegas. I think it'd be kind of funny. I still think the White House is better for us. I think us going to White House dinner. I'm intimidated by the White House. All right, we'll come to Vegas. You can show me around the White House.

I'll show you around Vegas. We'll come to Vegas. I'm most interested in the really good restaurants here. I'm not interested in the- You want to know the weirdest stage of my life? And this is a true story. When my mom was dying, you know, my mom asked to die at home. And I said, fine, I have some flexibility and economic security.

I will move to Vegas. And I moved in with her. And during the day, I managed kind of her health care. And we watched Jeopardy and everyone, you know, everybody loves Raymond. I look at old photos. It was actually a very rewarding, nice time in both of our lives. And then at night, I would go down to the strip, and I would get shitty drunk with strippers and a couple of guy friends I made. It was a very strange time in my life. Anyways, that's my Vegas story.

My memories of Asia are Tony Hsieh coming here and talking to him about what he was doing. Oh, he was building that community, right? And CES, of course, getting stuck here with CES forever. I've been to CES once and I didn't enjoy it. Well, my good friend, I brought one time, I'll do my Vegas story. I brought my friend Jennifer Beals, who did Flashdance. And there's an actual game that you play. Where they pour water all over you after a dance?

I don't know. It's a slot game, which she was horrified with, but I took a picture of her in front of it. But I kept telling people she was a tech executive, and everyone believed it. I was like, yeah, she works for eBay. She's a top executive at eBay. That's what I told them. Anyway. Yeah, we had a good time.

I saw Casey and the Sunshine Band when I went to see us. That was almost worth it. Okay, that's good. He puts on a great show. Vegas memories for Scott and Kara. Anyway, we've got a lot to get to today, including Tesla asking shareholders to reinstate Elon Musk's multi-billion dollar pay package.

We knew that was coming and moving to Texas from Delaware. And NPR becoming the latest company to face dissent in the newsroom. What a surprise. But first, the TikTok ban is back and might be fast-tracked through Congress this weekend.

Ooh, tricky little legislative moves. Speaker Mike Johnson, who seems to have found a spine a little bit, plans to bundle TikTok legislation into a package that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The vote is expected in the House on Saturday. If it passes, the package will go to the Senate for a vote and then head to President Biden. The bill would give TikTok parent company ByteDance 270 days to divest the app for a little longer. The president will also have an ability to issue a one-time 90-day extension. It's an interesting strategy because it'll be hard for the Senate to peel it off.

They certainly could, but they want to get this thing passed quickly. And I know Johnson certainly does. And the people in the Senate want these foreign bills to go through. He's under a lot of pressure from Marjorie Taylor Greene and the rest of the yin-yangs over there. What do you think? What an interesting legislative ploy to get it through faster. Well, I'm very focused on a few things. One, I would like to see aid to Ukraine and Israel. I'd like to see us get our act together and support our allies and push back on autocrats and terrorism. And also, just to be fair, I could not be more different around policy than Speaker Johnson. But the Speaker of the House is supposed to be largely an administrative, not a political position. And I think you got to give the guy some credit. I think he's doing his level best to get shit done in the face of crazies who

have figured out they have some leverage. So they are absolutely say, I'm going to put my crazy on full display. It's like Senator Manchin was in the news a lot because he was the swing vote. on full display. It's like Senator Manchin was in the news a lot because he was the swing vote. And you have these individuals who are really sort of really political opportunists. And I like the fact that he's saying, you know, okay, kick me out. Fine. You want to put two or three bullets in the chamber and play Russian roulette? Fine. But all these fake threats about, you know, she said she was going was gonna or she was filing to oust the speaker i'm like yeah let the republicans go through that again so i i hope this goes through the tiktok ban i'm actually very excited about this and you know i've said all

along the ban i think will be passed and then they will come to some sort of accommodation with the white house this is an enormous in my, the best investment opportunity out there right now is to go buy shares in the secondary market of TikTok. Oh, interesting. Because it's trading, I think, in the private markets for about $220 billion. And there's some hair on it because you can't sell your shares for a while. Or if you buy employee shares, I think there's some restrictions on it. But keep in mind, this is a platform that's ascending faster than Google or Meta. It has

huge revenues, huge profits, global presence. And it's trading at a fifth of what Meta is trading at. And it's trading at an eighth of what Google is trading at because of this overhang of political uncertainty. And I believe that will be lifted at some point. So anyways, I think it's super interesting. What are your thoughts? an interesting amount of fan, but nonetheless, he wrote a piece about Russian disinformation amid the Republican Party. And I think Johnson sort of got in that memo in terms of disadvantage is nobody

but the Russians. And there's so much talking points of Russia in the Congress on the right that it's disturbing. You know, it's not even like the Manchurian candidate. They're just like out and about.

They didn't have to take them to a place. They're just like repeating it. We're taking our own family hostage. Have you seen any of these hearings on the impeachment of Joe Biden? It's being run by the GRU. Their primary witness is a Russian spy. Yeah. And also I saw, you know, some of the outbursts in Congress, they at least come up with proof or shut up and they just won't. They're just, you know, Comer especially, what an idiot he is. I think he's going to probably be replaced, would be my guess. Or he has to just stick with the Democrats is what he's found he's going to have to do. And who knows, maybe Hakeem Jeffries becomes Speaker of the House. I think they're going to lose the House

in any way. So he'll be put out of his misery sooner than that, if trends lines are showing. And so it doesn't really matter. And I suspect the Democrats will have a solid little majority and they tend to stick together better and don't do this kind of murderous stuff to each other. So we'll see. Anyway, speaking of things that are totally unfair, college basketball star Caitlin Clark is headed to the WNBA to play for the Indiana Fever. She'll stay in the Midwest following this week's draft. Many are crying foul when it comes to what she'll be paid. Clark is set to earn $338,000 over four years with a base salary of $76,000 for her first year, according to the WNBA's collective bargaining agreement. The number one pick in last year's NBA draft got a $55 million four-year contract when he signed

with the San Antonio Spurs. WNBA players have been fighting for pay equity for decades. Many play internationally in the offseason to supplement their incomes, as we saw with Brittany Greiner. Caitlin Clark has all sorts of scoring and viewership records. And a lot of these women, very suddenly, they're really good numbers.

Just the TV pay has not kept up. That said, some of the numbers are really, they're veering in on really heavy duty, should be paid more, but their TV deals are in place. And it is what it is. I think they only get 66 million versus a couple billion. You know, it's, I mean, it just, it just puts it into stark relief. This is a, you know, an amazing generational player, and at the same time, a hugely attractive media asset for everybody. And she's getting buck kiss, but that's because of the way it was, not the way it should be or the way it will be. Yeah, I don't think this is unfair. I do think it brings sharp relief

into the fact that the WNBA thus far has not been a successful league financially. It does about $200 million in revenue. The NBA does $10 billion. And above minimum wage, we decide that the marketplace is based on supply and demand. I don't think the connotation here is that there's some systemic sexism going on. And I just don't think that's true. I think the WNBA to date, if you're upset about this and start watching WNBA games is what I tell people. And also, she will probably make several million dollars a year off the court for sponsorships. And she could do for the WNBA what you and Bill Simmons and Joe Rogan did for podcasting. I think she is going to elevate the revenues of the league. She's bringing much needed

attention to the WNBA. The bottom line is the WNBA so far, Cara, has been a giant thud. And as a result, they don't get any money and they don't have the money to pay these folks. And she's going to the highest bidder. And in this industry, with the current economics, the highest bidder is this. Their numbers are getting very interesting the way they— They're getting better, much better. Very, and quite good, actually. And probably these TV deals will be better as people start to really like watching these things.

They'll make more money. It's, you know, she's a bargainist, like an amazing bargain. She'll make a ton of money, of course, on Nike or whatever the heck. She'll make a fortune with sponsorships. 100%. And she deserves it. She's a phenomenon. I doubt she'll play internationally.

Why damage herself? You know, why do that? She'll make plenty of money. You know, I forget what she has, State Farm or whatever. She has a ton of sponsorships and she'll get a ton more. And it'll help the WNBA in that regard. She has a ton of sponsorships, and she'll get a ton more. And it'll help the WNBA in that regard.

You know, you need players like Megan Rapinoe and her and others to call attention. Because in that case, they were doing much better than the soccer men, like in terms of everything, in terms of numbers, viewership. And the soccer men got paid more. I mean, that was a slightly different situation in this case, just better ratings. But the ratings are excellent, and we'll see where they go and if they can— Well, the under-18 Australian soccer team beat the women's soccer team in the U.S. Should they get paid more? No, but that's—I'm talking about viewers. You're talking about just purely viewership? Megan Rapinoe's a star, and so she made more money. I mean, she should make more money.

I agree. If the numbers are up, they're up. It doesn't matter of beating. That's kind of a stupid comparison. I'm sorry. The connotation is that there's something unfair here. Oh, in the case of the soccer thing, it's a very different case. I think you actually... I don't know. Are the revenues for women's soccer comparable to this?

Yes. I didn't know that. Yes, much more so. And the numbers are higher and everything else. That was a very different situation than this. But hopefully these numbers will go up and we'll see where it goes. But congratulations to Kaitlyn Clark. And I hope she makes a ton of money from whatever advertiser. She's very wholesome. She's funny. She's the unfairness here is that college athletes aren't paid. All the old white guys at the NCAA and the coaches make millions.

And the young, more non-white people on the floor generating tens of millions for their host institutions, we've decided that that's pure to not pay them. That is total bullshit. That really is unfair. You know I'm for that. I'm for that. They should pay what they make for these colleges.

100%. And these colleges benefit. And there should be a free market to bid on them. There's a free market in the WNBA. What will be fascinating is to see if her incredible talent and popularity translates to the WNBA, because so far it hasn't with these stars. We'll see. This is what you need, these kind of players that bring interest. 100%.

Soccer wasn't popular until it was, right? Kind of things in the United States, at least. In any case, speaking of things that aren't worth it, Trump media stock continues to plummet, but the company is already announcing its next venture, streaming. True Social is launching a live TV streaming service, allegedly, to focus on content that has been canceled at the risk of cancellations being suppressed. I wish some things were canceled. Trump Media says it tested the streaming service on its web and iOS platforms for six months and has finished the research and development phase. The company

stock was down 14% on Tuesday. It was already down like crazy. It's getting down into, you know, it will be down into the sub $10 level very soon, I think, following the stream announce. I don't know. What are they just the next thing they're going to be an AI company, I guess. I don't know what to say. This is just not a company, people. As Barry Diller says, it's scam. It's scam to support former President Trump to give him money. Yeah, agreed. They're going to go, what do they have? They have sort of an exclusive on, quote unquote, Donald Trump, his affiliation with it. They've created this weird vessel that people who support Donald Trump have decided to buy the stock and send it on sort of a meme stock. I mean, even with an incredible

drawdown on the stock price, the company still has a $4 billion market cap on $4 million in revenue. So it's trading at a thousand times revenue. I mean, it really is crazy town. And I'm not even sure they're ever going to do this. First off, okay, they have a lot of attention because he's constantly in the news every day. They have not shown any ability to run a business. I mean, think about all the goodwill they supposedly have. You think some of that would translate to conservative companies wanting to advertise? They can't. We have a bigger business than True Social. Pivot is have a bigger business than True Social. Pivot is a much bigger business than True Social on revenues.

Yeah. And they're trading at $4 billion. So they don't have competent management. They don't have anything resembling a strong user base. And they're like, I know, let's launch in another medium. And by the way, that medium is declining and struggling itself. Yeah. A news station does, I think they have fantastic talent. You know, it's not like they've attracted a large viewership. So this is a difficult business. I

don't even think that, I'm not even sure they'll launch. I don't think they have the competence, the content. I think they're doing anything to try and say, hey, look over here, we should be worth $4 billion. It was down to $24 yesterday it opened, and then now it's slightly up to $29. It's just their troops are trying to rally around Trump. You know, there's huge declines, but everybody is going down. I'm sorry. You know, there's been a lot of losses, so it's going to go back up again. But this is a Trump, he owns 60% of the shares, essentially.

This is to help him. And you can make a lot of move with just buying a small amount, and I suspect rich people will do that just for the, you know, as a loss leader. But, you know, if you're not wealthy, please don't do this to yourself. You'll lose money. You've lost money and you'll lose more and you're a chump. Let the rich people do it to support them or the ones who have extra money if that's what they want to do. But you might as well throw your money into the trash can at this point. But I think what DJT or Donald Trump media is about to become is, I've been thinking a lot about obesity and GOP1 drugs and how it's the virus that kills more people than COVID and how we ignore it

because we have the industrial food complex that gets you addicted to shitty, salty, fatty food and then hands you over to the diabetes industrial complex. So we've decided not to in any way, you know, eliminate the presidential fitness awards, but tell people who are, you know, have the fashion industrial complex, say that people who are, you know,

hugely overweight, that they're finding their truth. I think it's all about money. And if you think about McDonald's, if you think about PepsiCo, their company has been more than that. They're basically obesity indices. And as obesity has skyrocketed and gone from 5% morbid obesity to 9%, from 30% obesity to 40%, these stocks are up 8 and 12 fold over the last 20 or 30 years. And I believe they're going

to crash as GLP-1 drugs help the most needy people in terms of body mass index. I think the same may end up happening here, and that is Donald, DJT or True Social might end up becoming an index for Donald Trump's popularity or polls as we move into the election. I think when he upticks, you're going to see the stock have a brief burst, and when he downticks, it'll come down. I think it's about to become an index for the polling. Oh, interesting. That's an interesting thing. Well, look, if you don't have money, though, don't put your life savings into this. Even though I think you's about to become an index for the polling. Oh, interesting. That's an interesting thing. Well, look, if you don't have money, though, don't put your life savings into this. Even though I think you're probably a terrible, heinous person, don't throw your money at this, you know, if you're doing this for yourself. Anyway, please don't.

Don't buy the shares if you cannot afford them. If you want to play games with Donald Trump, that's certainly your right. But it's not a company. It's not a company. Okay, let's get to our first big story. It's not a company. It's not a company. Okay, let's get to our first big story. Tesla is asking its shareholders to reinstate that multi-billion dollar compensation package for CEO Elon Musk, the one that was rejected by a Delaware judge as unfair earlier this year. The board says it still stands behind the pay package. Of course it does, because they get paid.

And that a vote in favor of it at the company's annual meeting would, quote, restore Tesla's stockholder democracy. Again, but they're pulling in all the way. I can't believe First Amendment wasn't shoved in this statement. Shareholders will also be voting on Elon's plan to move Tesla's corporate home from Delaware, Texas. So it's moot, the Delaware decision. This is what they said they were going to do. They will do it. He'll get his money back.

They'll win on this one. Tesla shareholders very much like Trump, true social, although Tesla's an actual business, still will bid it up no matter what he does. So they want to pay him. Maybe he's worth it if the stock does well, if he can turn around and get better cars and get the economic prospects of Tesla doing well. He's certainly capable of it compared to Donald Trump. But, you know, the argument seems to be they may not have been aware what was behind the creation of the pay package, but now they are. I think they will approve it. I think most people think they

will. Just for people to be aware, Tesla's stock performance has been more than lackluster in 2024. The shares have lost 38% of their value so far. Elon's pay package was worth $56 billion in January. Now it's closer to $45 billion. He is the key man in this thing at this point. It probably shouldn't be. And he wanted voting control back in January. He'll get that probably. It's his company to do with what he wills, what he wants to. I don't know. It's capitalism. Nice to meet you. I think that's right. I do think his pay package will be reinstated. And the thing that Aswath Damodara and my colleague at Stern pointed out that made a lot of sense to me is we see the headline number, $56.45 billion. And the delay, by the way, if he were to exercise and sell all

his shares, I don't know if he was planning to do that, it's costing $10 billion even if it's reinstated. But that's the headline number. But when they actually devised and awarded the compensation package, it was on options on stock when the stock was far below this, meaning that if you valued his actual compensation package when the award was made, it was dramatically less than $45 billion. And as much as I hate to in any way defend or acknowledge the point, he wasn't paid $45 billion. He was given options much less than that. And because the stock skyrocketed, he's registered this enormous windfall. So I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say, should the board be paying him $45 billion? If Vox gave us, let's say, $10 million worth of options, options that had a value of $10 million, and you value options based on their upside, potentially using like the Black-Scholes method, and then Vox's stock went up

10x, our shares would probably be worth somewhere between $100 and $200 million. And people might say, well, these podcasters aren't worth that. But that's not the number. You look at the initial compensation or value of the options when they were awarded. So I think it'll be reinstated. And I do think it's a little unfair to look at the headline number because what we're not taking into account is the fact that the stock skyrocketed after they opened the options. Absolutely. Again, I think the point that Delano court was making is a good one. This board is in his pocket. And that's, as many corporations are,

FYI, they're particularly in his pocket. This board is, it benefits from him. They party with him. You know, it just shows corporate boards. And this is a particularly

very compromised one that'll do his bidding. And that's, to me, that's the message here. I think, you know, the Delaware court is right,

and this terribly compromised board has every right to reward him because he's it. He's the one. He's the guy. Again, grotesque, certainly worth it. The stock has been up under his leadership, so they've all benefited. In this case, they've all done very well with his whatever his antics may be. I do think they're facing a lot of challenges, as we've talked about. And I think we were born out to be right, even though we got slapped by all the stands, which is let's look at the company itself. The product is tired. The toxic behavior is hurting the brand.

There's competition and it's a tough market. So that's really what people should be looking at with this company more than anything else. The Delaware court is a hundred percent right. They should go after everybody, every company. Often it's like this just happens to be the most egregious example of that, presumably. But so far year to date, Tesla is the worst performing stock in the S&P. I mean, out of 500 stocks, it's the worst performing. And also, they had their biggest miss in terms of estimates for vehicle delivery. So, I think this stock has a long way to go down. They've laid off 10% of the workforce, which is probably the right move. But the hardest thing about being on a board, I find, and more broadly, probably about management,

about being on a board, I find, and more broadly, probably about management, is compensation. And in this instance, it's, okay, how do we try and justify the compensation here? What I do think this will have an impact on is I don't think he's going to be issued so many shares that he controls the company or a new class of shares. I think that this has basically sent a signal to the board that there is other governance and you can't just do ridiculous things that are clearly off market. And they're benefiting. That second journal piece was so like revelatory, what the fix is in for this guy. Again, he's done really well with the stock. I'm going to, you know, I do not compliment Elon Musk, but the problem with this company is not that he is not paid enough. It has to do with the, you know, stop focusing on Twitter and focus on doing better cars. It doesn't

actually, it doesn't even matter now because there's too much competition. There's too much consumer sentiment against him. It doesn't matter unless he comes out with the best car ever. And no matter how many jazz hands he puts around robo taxis or anything else, I would be surprised if he can pull a rabbit out of a hat here. He had his time. And it's a good car, but there's lots of good cars now. And that's the way it is. This is so inevitable, what's happened to him. And it's a business story rather than an Elon Musk story. Anyway, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about newsrooms facing challenges from within and take a listener mail question about the pros and cons of dual class shares. Very much in the news now with Paramount, the really weird stuff swirling around Paramount with all these

complex deals. 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 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. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, live laugh lovers.

In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money.

Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at fizz.ca. Scott, we're back with our second big story. An NPR employee has resigned in the aftermath of an essay he wrote accusing the company of liberal bias. Editor Uri Berliner was initially disciplined with a five-day suspension for not getting approval to write for another outlet. He's been going all over the place. He's, you know, he's more promiscuous than a Vegas madam in that regard. I think you're projecting. Whatever. I think you're projecting.

Whatever. I wouldn't do this. He ultimately gave his notice saying NPR CEO Catherine Marr's divisive views confirm the issues he cited in his essay. His sloppy essay, by the way, his sloppily edited essay. NPR management has pushed back against the criticism, and over 50 employees have sent a letter to NPR's CEO and editor-in-chief asking for a public rebuke of the essay. I wish she had done this, too, because it's full of errors. Let's start with what happened at NPR and then want to talk to the bigger picture. I mean, he had a critique.

He can have that critique. It is a fair critique that said, full of errors, NPR's Steve Inskeep, who I would say usually is a very good journalist, shared his reaction on Substack saying, my colleague's articles was filled with errors and omissions. Very easy to pick apart that. And I get it. I think the focus is on his critique. It's a liberal organization. Okay. Does that mean they can do their job or not? Does it mean, et cetera, et cetera? When you do a piece like this, you should get reaction if you want to do this, if you actually pretend that you really care about the institution. I don't really know what this guy's game is in any way, except he sounds like a disgruntled, sloppy person. But it's worked. It's worked, and it plays in the hands of the right, as always. They don't let facts get in the way of a good story. I think NPR should have been much more aggressive. Talk a little bit about your thoughts on this. Away from NPR's liberal, I want to, about this particular incident. The bottom line is, Kara, I don't feel like I have the domain expertise you do here. The thing that strikes me is, if it's national public radio, does that mean they're getting government funding? Well, not very much.

Not as much as you think. Yeah. It's like, what is it? It's like, you know. It's tiny. I forget. I can look it up, but go ahead. Yeah, Planned Parenthood or whatever.

People don't realize they really don't get these organizations or they don't get as much money from the government as they should. And I always thought PBS should just not take any government money. Because when you do take government money, there is a legitimate claim that you're supposed to represent the United States or you have some bonus to do that. If they're a fully private company, they can have whatever conservative or liberal bias that they want.

So I don't know if there's any veracity around those comments. All right, so claims. NPR receives very little direct federal funding. 1% of its budget comes from government grants, including from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. Why wouldn't it go to zero? That's what I'm getting at.

Because then they can just say, we can do whatever the fuck we want. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, it receives, you know, things come in directly to it. The name itself feels like it does, right? It does in that way, but it doesn't. You know, he said there are 87 to zero in the Democratic Party. That's not true. Like, he pulled stuff like that.

If you're a reporter, do your fucking reporting and tell us the actual numbers of people. That's what drives me crazy is what a sloppy, what a sloppily edited piece. If you want to make these assertions and have these opinions, you grumpy piece of shit, do your job. That's my feeling. Like, all right, do your job. Stephen Skeap has happened to be independent. Did he call Steve Inskeep? Did he call for him?

I think you're being emotional. I'm not. I think you're being emotional. I am being emotional because I hate shitty reporters. Okay. I just hate shitty reporters. And great.

I think it's, you know, it's tailor-made for the right-wing ecosystem led by Chris Riffo to do its job. They found her. I hate Trump as a racist. And by the way, Trump is a racist. So it's factual. And by the way, if I'm head of NPR, I'm happy to say that out in public. I love it. I absolutely love NPR. So more importantly, more importantly, because I find this boring, where are you staying in Vegas?

I'm staying at the Aria. But let me talk about the larger issue. No, we're going to finish this discussion. I agree. I think this guy is going to be doing his book, the Aria. But let me talk about the larger issue. No, we're going to finish this discussion. I agree. I think this guy is going to be doing his book, angry, angry. He acted like a victim when he quit. Whatever. Good luck. Good luck, Yuri. Be a better reporter. This is part of a larger trend of newsrooms and companies dealing with staffers who

go public with their concerns. Google just fired 28 workers who participated in sit-ins to protest the company's cloud computing contract with Israel. That was interesting. It's not just about Israel and Gaza. NBC had a rebellion with the Ronna McDaniel hiring. What is going on here? I mean, it's just all these workplaces. Again, we're back to a couple of years ago, same thing, people having feels all over the place. What do you think? We had to put up with this shit when the labor market was tight in the tech market. And these folks that are under the impression that this isn't the year of efficiencies, it's the year of, oh, God, pretend that we care about their feelings. For me, this isn't an Israel issue. It's like, look, if you want to have a sit out or protest your own company and embarrass your own company, you're an at-will employee. They might fire you. And that's your right. But just keep in mind, it's their right to fire you. Yeah, this is their statement, which I thought was interesting. Physically impeding

other employees' work and preventing them from accessing our facilities is a clear violation of our policies and completely unacceptable behavior. Okay, look, I ran small companies. If someone peacefully protested and made noise in the lobby about something we were doing, I'd be like, that's interesting. You've made a good point. You're fired. There are certain things you give up when you sign the backup checks and someone else is signing the front of them. And the notion that you can be disruptive in any way or even embarrass the company, you might get fired. I just don't, on any issue. Google was pretty strong here. It was interesting. They weren't before on other protests. Well, they don't need

these people as bad. It's like, well, okay, there's a ton of people laid off from Meta and from all different tech companies. And so we don't need to put up with

this childlike behavior of people who are under the impression there's more demand for them than there is. And also, to be fair, a lot of these CEOs at tech companies pretended to want to hear their feelings about politics and said, bring your

whole self to work. Don't bring your whole self to work. Bring your skills to work. Create economic security for you and your family and then protest on the weekends. And if they do anything to get in the way of that, then they should be in trouble. But for God's sake, anyone showed up at one of my firms protesting about anything maybe I was vehemently in agreement with that was in any way a distraction, disruptive, or generally just made the firm look bad, oh my God, that would be an easy one. I would sit them down and say, I rarely mix pleasure and business, but you're fired. I do support protests, but if you got in the way of people, it's their thing. Just get another job if you disagree. Just get another job. That's what you have to do. I know you're all not going to like that point of view from the two of us, but that's the way it is, unfortunately. Okay, Scott, let's pivot to a listener question.

The question comes from Diane. I'll read it. Hey, Scott and Kara. Ooh, you came first for the first time. Long-time listener, first-time caller. I want to know about dual-class shares. Ooh, we know a lot about it, too. In light of what's going on with Sherry Redstone, Paramount, Apollo, and the resignation of board members, I don't understand why anyone would buy shares in a dual-class system. If you can't fire Mark Zuckerberg, what's the point? With all the regulations and reporting to be a publicly traded company, how did this become a thing? Oh, that's a longer story. Thanks for taking my question, Scott. Keep telling the jokes. Most are eye-rollers,

but I still love them. And Cara, you're obviously fabulous, but you do interrupt Scott a lot. Oh, my God. No, I'm going to, Diane, I'm going to give you the numbers. Give me, email me, Cara.swisher.com. No, that's volume of words, not interruptions. Oh, all right, whatever. Because I have to, because you won't stop talking. In any case, why don't you talk about, I will talk very briefly about dual-class shareholders in that many tech companies have them, but so does the New York Times. The reason it was put into place for the good part is so that venture capitalists or others

couldn't take over and they could do what they wanted. It's a way to control the company with shares. Lots of companies have had them for a long, long time. A lot of people object to them. But people who go into these companies know it going in, who's making the investment. So in that regard, that's why they buy them, because it would be great to have invested in Facebook, even if Mark Zuckerberg can't be fired from a financial point of view. So Scott, explain what's happening and specifically talk about what's happening and specifically talk about what's happening with Sherry Redstone. First off, I don't know if you know this, but I went to Vegas, Cara, and I married my best friend. And for some reason, my wife was pissed off about

it. Anyway. Thank you, Teddy Youngman. Go ahead. Shecky Green, I think. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Okay. Look, okay, brief history. The idea of a dual-class shareholder company was originally initiated or justified by media companies, newspaper companies, who said, we don't want the pressures of a shareholder coming in and pressuring our editorial viewpoint or coverage. You can sort of, sort of rationalize it, but at the end of the day, it's for families that don't want economic control that is attached or detached from the risks they're willing to take with their own capital. Now, what changed everything is when Sergey and Larry said, I know we want to pull the newspaper model and we want to have dual class shareholders so we continue to control Google, even if we own less than 50%. And it was a big battle. even if we own less than 50%. And it was a big battle. And finally, because there was so much money and so much demand for Google stock, that the investors agreed to it. And since then, it's gone absolutely batshit crazy. And every founder that now has a decent amount of leverage

and a company looks to kind of be well-received in the market, investors hold their nose and put up with a dual-class shareholder structure. It is, generally speaking, a bad idea because it takes off, one, it's poor governance. You can't fire Mark Zuckerberg. And two, it immediately soaks out the takeover premium. Because at some point, if a stock gets too low, someone can come in and buy the company or kick the CEO out. And that's not true here. So there are dual-class shareholder companies everywhere. Richemont is dual-class shareholder. Everyone, a lot of people in tech have adopted this. Now, having said that, having said that, if you actually look at the data, dual-class shareholder company stocks have not underperformed single-class. Why? Because typically, typically speaking, the companies that are dual-class shareholder are companies that are doing so well that the founders have a lot of control and those companies have done really well. Case in point, Meta is dual class shareholder and it has been an absolute, you know, screaming performer.

performer. So I hate these things. I have direct experience with this. I raised $600 or $700 million to become the largest shareholder at the New York Times Company, got two of the five board seats awarded to the common shareholders. And basically what I figured out, and I knew this, but I didn't know it, is that we weren't really a board. What we were was a board of advisors. And then on any important issue, the Sulzbergers and the family would decide. So, for example, when we were raising $500 million during the OA crisis, we ended up raising it from Carlos Slim. Why? Was it the cheapest source of capital that would be best for shareholders? No, it was because the Sulzbergers determined that Congress would never let a Mexican own the New York Times, so they weren't a threat to their ownership stake. And we took money from a Mexican billionaire instead of many of the billionaires in America that would have given us the money for less because the Sulzbergers were threatened by any domestic billionaire because they thought at the end of the day,

you want to take over the company. I hate these things, but at the end of the day, they have not underperformed the market. But it is a weird, whenever you separate economic risk from accountability and control, bad things happen. Agree. And that's the reason it's thought great is because Mark is doing great. A lot of the tech companies, but sometimes they just don't do great. And in this case, Sherry Redstone, she's presided over since she took over from her father. The numbers have gone down precipitously at the company in terms of performance, in terms of value.

She herself has lost billions of dollars in what it was worth and what it was worth now. She's put in a CEO that people are thinking has not run it well, Bob Backish, I think is how you pronounce it. And so, but she's still in the catbird seat, so she can reject. So she's been canoodling with David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, and they have this very,

if you want to read the backs and forths, Bill Cohen's, I think, doing the best job of what's happening here. It's a back and forth. They're doing all these convoluted where they buy National Amusement, which she owns, owns the controlling stake in Paramount Global, I think. And so he's trying to buy that. And then Paramount Global will then turn around and buy his company, Skydance, which makes very successful movies like the Mission Impossible movies, Top Gun 2, stuff like that.

So it'll buy it back. There'll be some recapitalization of some sort that looks like that or whatever, decapitalization. Larry Ellison's around, hanging around the basket. And then David will take the shares in the movie company. They'll sell off a bunch of, they own a lot of ugly theaters. Meanwhile, there's another competing, there's very few people wanting to buy this, by the way, FYI.

Apollo, which is Season Opportunity, it's run by Mark Rowan, has made an offer, but she can reject that Apollo deal out of hand if she wants to. She's doing better with the David Ellison one, but if Apollo came up a little bit, it probably, all things being equal, I think Bill is recommending the Apollo deal because it's a lot cleaner. Suddenly, Jeff Zucker is involved with Redbird with Cardinale, who runs that. You know, it's all these people machinating, and the Apollo deal is pretty straightforward. And then there's another investor, Marco Gabelli, who will probably sue. There's all kinds of people involved here. And so do you want a messy one that Sherry does better on or do you want a cleaner one where she doesn't do as well?

But we'll probably remove the idea of lawsuits against it. And the third option, of course, is nothing happens. Everybody walks away and this company just gets bought and sold for parts at some point in the future. So it's a bad example of a dual class shareholder, correct, Scott? That's exactly right. This is an example of when things come off the tracks. And when you're Google and everything's up and to the right, people will put up with a dual class shareholder structure because everyone is winning. It's champagne and cocaine for everybody. The problem is, is when shit gets real and the business is failing and the valuations

are going down. Because there's two things about the dual-class shareholder structure that leak value from all shareholders to Sherry. First and foremost, what you said, she can just cross her arms and say, yeah, it's a good deal. Maybe we're all going to get fucked, but I don't want to sell the company or I don't like the deal. So I can just cross my arms. And despite owning less than 50%, just say no. arms and despite owning less than 50%, just say no. Even worse than that, I would argue, is what she can do is she can hold a gun to the head of the buyer and say, okay, you want to pay us $10 billion. I own 20%. So my stake should be 2 billion. Nope. I want more money. So the buyer might go, you know what? I don't care about the other 80%. So Sherry, I will pay $4 billion for

your shares if you approve it, despite the fact that would be valuing the company at $20 billion, but the common shareholders only get valued at $10 billion. And that's what she's doing. She's saying, I don't give a shit. I'm not a fiduciary for the other 80%. I want extra value for my shares to approve the deal, which is nothing but an additional $2 billion to her that all shareholders should be splitting. That spells shareholder lawsuit. Actually, the family that owns Condé Nast did the exact same thing when selling a cable asset. They said, we're not going to approve the deal unless we get more. And the owners or the new bidders,

instead of having to pay double to everybody, they just have to pay double to Sherry. This is where it just comes off the tracks. And more than anything, what this is a symptom of is the fact that this business just doesn't have the kind of bidders that they were hoping based on the fact that this business is in structural decline. Right. I would agree. I think, you know, if this was doing well, it would be very, very different. Right. Correct. A hundred percent. They'd all be fine. We all like it when it's Mark Zuckerberg because it's doing well. So he's doing a good job. Let me just read, Bill, just very quickly. If we're gaming this out there, and I must note a number of people around the sales process have suggested to me, half-jokingly, that Puck should get a deal fee, that I'm thinking the Apollo deal may be the best option after all, again, non-investment advice.

Sure, it's not as exciting as the Ellison opportunity with all its bells and whistles and Jeffs. This would be Jeff Schell and Jeff Zucker running the place, etc. And yes, Apollo is trying to buy Paramount at a low point. But as low as Paramount is trading right now, it can trade down further. that Ellison is offering over the roughly $1.25 billion that she stands to make in the Apollo deal. But she will really risk letting a bird in the hand fly away. If Blair and FISA, this is the independent directors, Nix, Jerry, and David, she'll be left with Bakish and a publicly traded Paramount and a pick preferred at NIA, that's National Amusements. It's grown by 7.75% a year. If I were Sherry, I would authorize Trott to start serious negotiations. That's her banker, to start serious negotiation with Apollo to try to get the firm to raise its offer toward the Ellison-Jerry territory. The plot thickens, and it's getting nuttier than ever. So you said you thought they'd split the baby here in some fashion. I haven't seen that yet. Yeah, I just don't know. They're both, Ellison and Rowan and the guy who runs the media practice at Apollo, they're very smart.

And they're not going to overpay for this thing. This is just, it's dysfunctional. But the thing is, and it's hard to predict if someone's going to be rational or not. If she doesn't close with one of these two, it gets sold in 12 to 24 months for half the price now. It's not an asset that's going to grow right now in value. Yeah. But I agree with you. I think Bill's done a great job.

And I think Puck should open an advisory business, which is a huge conflict. Bill should. They kind of do in a lot of ways. Anyway, and they do definitely take a side. Sometimes I don't agree with their things, but I think Bill has the most clear-headed vision of this. Anyway, if you've got a question of your own and you'd like answered, send it our way. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Thank you, Diane. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for predictions. Okay, Scott, I'm going to make a very short prediction before you make your prediction.

Taylor Swift's album's coming out by the time this appears. I suspect it'll be out. Beyonce's Cowboy Carter is killing it. It's number top. It's making money hand over fist. The women thing is still going. I think it's systemic sexism against male country stars. Women are better.

It's just the facts. Taylor Swift album is going to be gigantic if it's good. I mean, I don't, I think it will be. It doesn't matter if it's good. Yes, it does. No, she suffers when it's not good. It's going to be huge regardless. It's going to be huge. But nonetheless, if it's good, it's going to be huger, huger.

And the Beyonce album, same thing. She could do a duet with Yoko Ono and it would be triple platinum. Critics be damned, but Beyonce's thing is doing great. And by the way, I've listened to it a dozen times recently. Is it good? It's so good. It's so good. It's so fun. It's so interesting. And beyond

the, you know, Texas Hold'em song, which is just infectious, there's so many good songs on that album. There's so many really interesting songs. Not all of them are country, but a lot of them, they all have a country feel. And I get that particular criticism, but I don't give a fuck. It's a great album. And by the way, my wife, Amanda, who is a music editor and knows her way around music, at first thought Texas Hold'em wasn't all that. And now she's like, I was wrong. This is a fantastic song. It took a minute to really listen to it. But I think this Taylor Swift album is going to be a

monster along with Beyonce. So the ladies prevail once again, along with Caitlin Clark. And I think she's got lasting power too, by the way, Scott. Quite frankly, it's not a prediction if you're stating the obvious that the Taylor Swift album is going to be big. And by the way, you'll like this story. Just a quick story. At the bar last night after the dinner for Ted, by the way, Chris Anderson is totally, totally pimping me out. He asked me, how many entertainment at the media dinner last night? You're very popular. This is my understanding, but go ahead. Anyway, so I met this lovely young woman who works at, I think it's called Pivotal. It's Melinda Gates' venture firm focusing on women-owned businesses.

And she came up to me and she's like, I like you. I loved your talk, but I hate it when you interrupt Kara. And I'm like, when I interrupt Kara? And she said, yeah, you interrupt her all the time. And I'm like, oh, people usually say that she interrupts me. But anyways, I thought you would like that story. Okay. Anyways, prediction. I said this last week. Trump, if you look at Trump's become, or Donald J. Trump media or true social, whatever we're going to call it, it's become a meme stock.

And I do think that valuation is gravity. You can defy gravity for a little while. Like when Michael Jordan jumps from the foul line, he does look as if, wow, this guy can defy gravity. At some point, even Michael Jordan comes down to earth. Every meme stock has had its moment, and then ultimately it comes down to earth. All of the meme stocks, AMC, GameStop, all of them are off 90 plus percent from their highs because they never made any sense. I think that might happen sooner rather than later here. And my prediction is that within the next 60 days, it's a single-digit stock. I also think there's an outside chance this thing goes to $2 or $3 a share, that it loses 90% from here. Because people, they may love Donald Trump, but I do think at the end of the day, they love their money more. And also, if you look at Kahneman's work, it's really interesting.

This is Daniel Kahneman. Daniel Kahneman, the behavioral economist who just passed away. One of his great breakthroughs was loss aversion theory. And it's really fascinating. It's actually, I read it a few years ago, and it's when I decided to cancel all of my insurance. By the way, I'm not recommending that. I can do it because I can absorb big losses. But essentially, the reason insurance is the best business in the world is that people would rather have a guaranteed series of losses, of small losses, than risk one big loss. And we overestimate the likelihood of extraordinary events. So insurance kind of taps into this behavioral flaw in the species, if you will. this behavioral flaw in the species, if you will. And what I think is going to happen here is I do think when people, no matter how much they like Donald Trump, have to consistently look at something where every day they're losing, or every week, 5%, 10%, 20% of their money, I do think that's painful, even if they like the guy. And at some point, they're going to go, am I the idiot

in the room? It's like if you walk into a room and you can't figure out who the stupidest person in the room is, that means it's you. And I do think at some point people are going to go, even though they thought, I like the guy, I want to buy it. Just the constant ping, the constant cut of, okay, the hundred thousand, 10,000 bucks I put into this thing, I lost $2,000 last week. And I think as soon as people start to vacate from this thing and said, okay, I did my best, you're going to see this thing return to earth similar to AMC or GameStop or any number of meme stocks. So anyways, my prediction, single digits within 60 days and a non-zero probability, it goes below five bucks a share in that time. Yeah. Oh, wow. Okay. And again, it's just not a business. Let's just keep

stressing that to people. So buyer beware, as they say. Okay. We covered a lot today. Where are you going next? Where's your next destination? I'm on a flight this afternoon to Orlando to speak to a large hedge fund. And then I go to New York for my book launch next week. And our good friend Stephanie Ruhle is hosting a book thing for me. And I'm going to be on, you know, I'm pouring myself out to every medium. I'm doing a book event at Stern. And Bradley Tusk has this lovely little bookstore on the Lower East Side. He's hosting a thing for me. I'm doing a, you know, basically a book thing every day. And then I go to LA for Bill Maher. And then I go back to Florida for another hedge fund thing. The only people that can pay my speaking fees now are all these hedge funds. And then I go home to London. So I'm

crisscrossing across the great country of North America. By the way, Vancouver, third most expensive housing market in the world. And again, again, the rich want to weaponize government to make it more expensive for new entrants such that the value of the asset they already own, their own home, skyrockets in value. Yet another transfer of wealth from the young to the old, Cara. You're right. You know, although there was a good story in the journal about luxury housing prices being down quite significantly. Really? Yeah. You send me that? Well, I'll say the journal's doing a great job. They do. Just a quick shout out. Okay. Scott, let me just say, congratulations on'll see if the journal's doing a great job. They do. Just a quick shout out. Okay.

Scott, let me just say, congratulations on your book launch. I'm very excited. And we'll talk about it next. We're going to focus on your book next week. It's going to be all about Scott and the things in your book. A few of my favorite things. Yes. We're going to make it a section where we're going to talk about what's in your book and what you, some of your advice, et cetera.

I'll do a little interview with you. It'll be great. And it looks great. I'm excited to read it. And my kids are both, both my kids are excited to read it. I think all of that was true, except for the last part. I really don't think you're excited to read my book on financial security. No, are you kidding? They read your book. Alex loves your books. I don't care what you think they do. I wouldn't tell you if they didn't. In any case, that's the show. We'll be back on Tuesday with more and let's wish Scott a wonderful book launch week.

Thank you, Cara. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, Travis Larchuk, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie and Ruttat engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Neil Saverio. By the way, my entire TED Talk was courtesy of Neil Saverio. Everyone is so impressed with my talk and how much time I put into it and all the data. And the reality is I just show up, press play, get all the credit, and Mia does all the work. So thank you, Mia, and well done.

Nishat Kerouan is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Hit the craps table and scream out, Mommy Needs New Shoes.