The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish - How to Think Like a World-Class Marketer | Rory Sutherland

Episode Date: December 9, 2025

Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland reveals the formula for persuasion, why people make decisions and how you can use psychology to your advantage. Rory is the world’s leading advertising strategist. He spent almost four decades as Ogilvy studying why people behave the way they do and how to change that behavior. He explains why contrast drives choices and efficiency often destroys value, and how trust, friction, and design shape real-world behavior. +Rory was previously on the show, check out episode 19. ----- Approximate Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (01:31) AI and Decision Making (03:48) Are We Looking for Efficiency in the Wrong Place? (15:52) Ad Break (18:09) Ice Cold Beer Thought Experiment (19:56) Trust and Manipulation (27:15) Dyson Customer Experience and 'Brand Quake' (29:21) Customer Value Thinking (34:28) Why Is Dyson So Effective at Marketing? (36:28) Ad Break (38:51) Map/Territory Problem in Business (39:27) The Problem with Shareholders (42:29) The Problem with 'Tech Bro' Decision Making (45:14) Warren Buffett’s Approach to Choosing Management (47:52) John Bragg’s Approach to Buying Infrastructure (51:23) High Trust vs Low Trust Societies (58:45) What Can We Learn from the Mad Men Era of Marketing (1:03:59) The Danger of Bad Marketing (1:17:47) Navigating Cancel Culture with Common Sense (1:29:59) Signalling to Ourselves When We Purchase Something (1:39:06) Changing of Societal Norms (1:43:27) How to Write Good Copy (1:56:30) What Is Success for You? ----- Upgrade: Get a hand edited transcripts and ad free experiences along with my thoughts and reflections at the end of every conversation. Learn more @ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/membership⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠------Newsletter: The Brain Food newsletter delivers actionable insights and thoughtful ideas every Sunday. It takes 5 minutes to read, and it’s completely free. Learn more and sign up at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠------ Follow Shane Parrish:X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/shaneparrish Insta: https://www.instagram.com/farnamstreet/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-parrish-050a2183/ ------ Thank you to the sponsors for this episode: Basecamp: Stop struggling, start making progress. Get somewhere with Basecamp. Sign up free at http://basecamp.com/knowledgeproject reMarkable: Get your paper tablet at https://www.reMarkable.com today .tech domains: Nothing says tech like being on .tech https://get.tech/ Shopify: https://shopify.com/knowledgeproject Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I keep hearing people saying, you will say to your AI, find me a skiing holiday, and it will provide you with a perfect skiing holiday. And I keep saying, people don't decide like that. When you allow tech bros too much power over decision making, along with their running dog lackeys in kind of management consultancy, you're optimizing for something which may be very, very distant from what your real-world customers really care about. What makes Tyson so effective at advertising? Actually, it's not advertising, it's marketing, and it's,

its customer experience. What's the difference to marketing and advertising? Advertising is a subordinate part of marketing and do you think we're looking for efficiency in the wrong place? We usually do and so you focus too heavily on cost reduction and too little on value creation. What are the rules of

good copy if I asked you to teach me how to write good copy? How would you do that? I think a large part of it comes down to So we first, we were talking about this in the elevator. It was nine years ago. Geesh.

Back when podcasting wasn't even a thing. We must be able to dig out the original content, presumably. What was it? It was your podcast number 47 or something, was it? Oh, no. I think it was like 16 or something. 16, really? It was really low.

We'll have to dig out the number, but it's been a long time since then. Oh, fabulous. And podcasting is exploded. I've been following Farnham Street devotedly. I appreciate that. And it's always, always interesting. Very, very interesting. And I mean, the whole question of the decision sciences is, I think, at the moment, completely critical.

And actually, by the way, it'll be very, very interesting with AI. Because I keep hearing people saying, you will say to your AI, find me a skiing holiday, and it will provide you with a perfect skiing holiday. And I keep saying, people don't decide like that. At the very least, you'll have to show them three or four or five skiing holidays from which they choose. because we can't really choose in the absence of comparison. You see what I mean? It's a sort of freakish element of free market capitalism,

which is we can only like something if we choose it in preference to something else. That's interesting. How does that relate to like a travel agency, which would do that inherently? Like if you said, I'm going to India to chat GPT and you're like, plan it for me versus you go to a travel agency and you're like, I'm going to India plan it for me. Well, among real estate agents,

So there's apparently a kind of little bit of a trick, which is you always, before you show someone the house you want to sell them, you show them a less appropriate house, ideally, that's slightly more expensive, say, so that when they see the house that you want to sell them, it's now clear cut because they can say, oh, it's a bit cheaper than the other one, and it's got a conservatory. There's a contrast. So there's a kind of decoy effect, a bit like the famous economist experiment with a decoy effect. So, you know, one of my interesting questions is, you know, what interface will AI deploy to help us make choices? And will it make the mistake that you could very easily make? If you think about it, nobody clicks the I'm feeling lucky button on Google. I think it's still there, isn't it? It's been there for years.

And they've removed it and found that it slightly reduces the appeal. But the number of people who actually click it, i.e., I'm feeling lucky, take me straight to a single page, is vanishingly small. People want to choose between, you know, effectively above the fold options. And so, you know, I'm just intrigued because it's very, very easy, I think, for people with an economic or tech background to make assumptions about what people are trying to do and how they choose and that we're, you know, utility maximizers and all this kind of thing, only really to be completely wrong. Do you think we're looking for efficiency in the wrong place? We usually do in the sense that when you pursue efficiency, there are a kind of. a few problems. But when you pursue efficiency, generally you start looking at numerical or

mechanical factors. And of course, in the process, you disregard psychological factors where the greater gains may be found. And so you focus too heavily on cost reduction and too little on value creation. I mean, one of the greatest forms of efficiency, by the way, is employing a human being who's really, really nice. Now, this is complete anathema to people in tech. who love to define business processes so as to make them susceptible to automation. You know, person X does this. We will take that function.

We will replace it with algorithm Y. And it's a very beguiling message because it usually comes with cost savings attached. You might have heard of my thing the Dorman Fawesi, did you? I'll remind the viewers and listeners, which is simply that, you know, you have a hotel, it's a five-star hotel, it has a Dorman, someone who welcomes in coming

guests, you know, a combination of, say, McKinsey or Accenture and a tech firm will come in and say, your doorman currently costs you X,000 a year. We have defined his or her function as opening the door. We will replace said doorman with automatic door opening mechanism and an infrared human detector, and we'll save you $30,000 a year. And then they walk away, they take the credit for the cost-saving. And then two years later, you know, the hotel's a catastrophe. The rack rates fall off a cliff because the doorman was doing multiple things, many of which were human and kind of tacit. Security would be one. You know, there are no vagrants to sleep in the doorway, hailing taxis, dealing with luggage, recognizing regular guests, providing status to the

hotel. There are loads and loads of value creation components to that doorman, which aren't captured in the Open the Door definition. Is that an example of where the costs are really visible, but the benefits are? Absolutely. It's very, very easy. Management consulting firms, if you're in a business and some management consultants come in, go to the management and say, are they on a gainshare agreement? A gain share agreement is a management consulting scam where you claim a certain percentage

of the cost savings you identify in year one. Now, as Roger L. Martin, your fellow Canadian and my own personal Spengali, says, any idiot can cut costs, okay? What takes real skill is cutting cost in a way that doesn't destroy value. One of the things that I don't think is understood by tech nerds, and if I'm being really cruel, males in general in many cases, is the extent to which in evaluating any business or experience, the human component of it, the face-to-face component,

does really, really heavy lifting. I've got a lovely story to illustrate this, which I think is fantastic. It's the absolute, perfect example of misalignment of optimization through quantification bias. So, wonderful man, Alex Batchelor, used to be the marketing director of Royal Mail, similar to what you have with Canada Post, right?

USPS. Sorry, not yours, yes, it's USPS. And they couldn't make any sense of them. fact that the brand perception of Royal Mail bore no relation to service levels. So there would be districts and areas where, you know, every single first-class letter arrived early the following day, extraordinarily reliable levels of service, and Royal Mail wasn't particularly held in affection or esteem. There are other areas where the service was frankly a bit ropy and people seemed to love it.

Now, this obviously upset them because they thought that all the billions or certainly hundreds of millions they'd invested in service quality improvement should translate into customer satisfaction and therefore, you know, some sort of brand voltage. And someone had a theory and they said, I think something else is going on. And the theory, which was put to the test and proved absolutely right, was that the major determinant of whether you liked Royal Mail or not was whether you like your postman or posty, plainly, to be used the gender-neutral term. So people who had a rather unreliable service, but the postman did the odd favor for them, left things in the porch, had a chat with them. Those people thought it was a brilliant

organization, regardless of the actual metrics that were being pursued. And I think that's very true in any service organization. You know, you may, there's an electricity company, a gas company, a water company, a utility. You may interact with them online in 95% of the time. but the one or two occasions where you interact by telephone or face-to-face disproportionately affect your perception of the organisation. And I've argued for quite a time. If I were being completely honest, I've worked in advertising for 36 years, and if I were a wholly honest person without, you know, fear of annoying my colleagues,

probably 50% of the time I would advise to a client, take 10 to 20% of your marketing budget and spend it on upgrading the call centre. Pay the people too much. Get the best practitioners. I think it's perfectly legitimate in some organisations. There should be the very best call centre people should be on six figures. Because it makes, if you're good and nice, that's how much difference it makes. In other words, it more or less drowns out all your other stuff, all the other noise.

If every time you have a personal experience, you have a good experience, then broadly speaking in the human brain, that's a good organisation which I can trust. when you think about it, I suddenly realized why this probably is we don't really have much evolved experience in evaluating postal efficiency, do we? Okay? We have got of a million, half a million years of evolved experience in deciding who to like and trust. Because for most of our evolutionary, you know, existence, that was one of the most five most important questions to get right. You know, do I trust this person, you know, will they attack me? Are they an ally? Are are they a foe, if I pay the money, will they deliver?

And so consequently, I think what we do in our brains is we use our human judgment as a proxy. Now, a story to back up that, you probably remember this, okay? It's in my book Alchemy, which is, imagine you're turning up to buy a secondhand car, and you turn up at the house, non-descript house, and the car's parked outside of the house, and you have a looky loo at the car, and you judge the, you know, whether the pedals of war, and the condition of the body work, and you have a look around the car. And you decide you're interested in paying, let's say, $5,000 for this car. So you go and ring on the doorbell of the vendor, and the door is answered in one situation

by, for example, a female vicar. Okay? Could be Catholic. Well, they can't be Catholic, but, you know, Episcopalia, it doesn't really matter, okay? Female vicar. And it's a tidy, clean house. At that point, you probably upweigh what you're prepared to pay by 20% or so. In a parallel universe, the door is answered by a guy in his underpants.

In other words, someone with no shame. In that instance, you devalue the car, I suspect, by about $1,000 or more. In fact, you may not even buy it at all. And what we're doing here is we're effectively saying, what I'm going to do is a stand-in for the question do I buy the car, which I don't have the technical knowledge to answer. I'm going to ask a supplementary heuristic question, which is, do I trust the person who's selling the car to me?

And it's an interesting question. My mother didn't know anything about cars, knew a lot about people. I think she would very reliably go around buying cars just through her assessment of the seller. And similarly, I think she might do better than someone with an engineering qualification who ignored who the seller was and their personality and character.

Now, as a bit of evidence of this, I discovered, because I've been investigating this, various real estate agents have said to me that every estate agent does their utmost to make sure that until things are signed and sealed, the vendor never meets the buyer and vice versa. And the reason for that is if one of them doesn't like the other, they won't buy or sell. Now, what do you think about it? That's completely, unless the person's moving next door.

Obviously, if you're buying a house from someone who's planning to move next door and they turn out to be a psycho, that's relevant information. But it seems to be the case that if you meet the vendor and you basically don't trust them or think they're a bit shifty, it doesn't matter what the price is, it doesn't matter the condition of the house. Suddenly you revise your valuation of the house downwards if you don't like the person selling it to you. And so that's one of the reasons why apparently real estate agents

will leave any kind of contact between the two until after at least a survey has been done and enough commitments taken place. I once, by the way, I once didn't buy a house basically because the guy was being an asshole about the fridge. Now, the fridge was only worth, you know, I think 0.2% of the value of the house, or 0.02% of the value of the house, I can't quite remember. But because he was being a dick about the fridge, I no longer trusted him about the house.

Weirdly, it turned out my instinct was right, because then a friend of ours went to buy the same house, they got some separate land registry search done and found out that a chunk of the garden actually belonged to network rail, not to the house. it effectively filched a large part of the garden. So does that mean, I just want to go back to the real estate thing for a second, does that mean pretty or attractive real estate agents would be more successful than? It's a really interesting question, which is I think we ought to study these things much more because the assumption of an economist is that you need to disintermediate.

You don't need estate agents, we just go on Willow, Zillow, sorry, or right movement. in the UK or whatever it is. What's the Canadian equivalent? I don't even know. Tabins.com or whatever. Okay, atulter.com. Exactly. You go on one of those things.

You choose the house you want. You look at it. You then look at the house, get a survey done, buy the house. We assume that there is, you know, this is a purely transactional exchange. Maybe in a rational world, that's exactly what it would be. But for one thing, actually, someone who's invested 15 years in doing up a house, probably cares about what the person buying it is going to do to the house. So my parents-in-law, for example, are fanatical gardeners.

Don't get into this. Seriously, get into something like crack. I don't think we have no worry that I'm going to be. Don't worry you're going to become an enthusiastic. I can barely keep a plant alone. Good, good, good, okay. But I guarantee if you went and looked around their house and placed an offer while being an expert in botany and generally quoting people like Gertrude

Jekyll and, you know, prominent garden designers and Sissinghurst and da-di-da-da-di-da-di-da. You could buy their house for 200,000 less than if you turned up and said, brilliant, we can knock down that tree and put in a helipad. Yeah. I think if you said we can knock down that tree and put in a carting track, right? I don't think they'd sell it to you at any price. If you're a founder, you know naming your startup takes forever. You finally land on the perfect name only to find out that Peter from Delaware got to

the dot-com first. So you're stuck with two bad options, pay up and fund Peter's retirement, or tack on random words until your domain looks like a Wi-Fi password. But after all the time and money spent on naming, you don't want that. And thanks to dot-tech domains, you don't have to. With dot-tech, you get the name you actually want. It's clean, sharp, no compromises. It instantly tells investors and customers that you're building technology. CES. Dottech, the world's biggest consumer tech event uses dot tech domain. So does onex. Dot Tech, an open AI back startup, along with hundreds of thousands of tech companies worldwide. So don't waste another minute negotiating. Go to GoDaddy, name cheap, cloudflare, or wherever you buy your domains and get your dot

tech domain today. The holidays are here. If you're searching for a truly meaningful gift for someone you care about or maybe for yourself, I might just have the perfect idea. Meet Remarkable, the paper tablet. We're all glued to screens that demand our constant attention, but Remarkable is a different kind of screen. It's an elegantly designed, distraction-free paper tablet built to help you think better and focus deeper. It has the simplicity and feel of writing on paper, but with the power of technology like organizing all your notes and ideas into one place, and even converting your handwriting into type text. With Remarkable, there are no apps, no social media, and no notification. just pure uninterrupted focus choose the device that fits your needs the original black

and white remarkable two the advanced color display of remarkable paper pro or the new portable remarkable paper pro move this holiday season give the gift of being present give the gift of focus find the perfect distraction-free paper tablet at remarkable dot com is that because people want to feel good about the transaction and feeling good is more than maximizing Richard Thaler did, I think his most interesting work of all is actually on the concept of transaction utility, which you may remember. Do you remember this?

A little bit. Yeah, it's in, I think it's in Nudge. And the famous thought experiment is this, which I find fascinating. And I think it's a really insightful thought experiment. So the idea is you and your best friend are lying on a beach somewhere, and it's hot, and you're very thirsty. And about a quarter of a mile down the beach,

there's a place that sells ice cold beach. beer. And your friend says to you, and he asks people to imagine this, your friend says to you, I'm off to blank to buy a beer. Tell me what the maximum amount you're happy to pay for a beer is. And if the price, they quote, falls below that threshold, okay, I will buy the beer, and if not, I won't. And he asked people to imagine what the threshold would be of what they'd pay for a beer on a hot day when they were parched on a beach for a cold beer. The beer is going to be consumed back where they're sitting. So the ambiance or, you know, the, the clientele of the establishment selling the beer is irrelevant because you're not going to consume it there.

And the interesting thing is, in one situation, he says there is a boutique hotel selling chilled beer. And in the other situation, he says, there's a shack selling cold beer. And your price changes. And your readiness to pay changes partly in accordance to what you imagine to be the overheads of the establishment selling the good. Even though the utility of the as distinct from how good the transaction feels,

the actual utility of the cold beer is identical in both cases. I think that's Richard Thaler and I think it's extraordinary interesting because I think we can make car salesmen will know this. You know, make the transaction feel good. Make them feel good

when they drive out of the place. There's a CLDini, right? You know, people are more likely to buy from you if they like you. They're more likely to like you if they trust you and you have something in common with them. And you can use all of these things to manipulate people, unfortunately. It's not manipulation. Be careful on that because, no, no, no. We've got to be really careful here.

One thing might be that a genuine cold-blooded psychopath would intentionally... No? I might find it difficult. This is a Jeffrey Miller theory, that if you're on a first date, there's an element where apparently, it's a long time, I've been married for 30-something years,

but women on a first date will turn up a bit late or do something a little bit annoying. And Miller's theory is that it's a psychopath detection test. So that if you... Interesting. So, you know, one of the worst things that can happen to women is to get into a relationship. with someone who's, you know, psychopathic, because you end up with an empty bank account

and, you know, and, you know, your sister's pregnant by her, but everything goes, you know, everything goes hopelessly wrong. Someone who's written very interestingly about this, by the way, is fabulous woman who writes about education and absolutely brilliant. Like, I'll remember her name in a second, but she's written quite about this, having a psychopath in the family. Likewise, Kevin Dutton has also written about this, about his own father. There are certain things which you can do, which make it very likely that psychopaths will out themselves. So the perfect test might be you bribed the waiter to tip soup on them. Oh, interesting.

And they'll lose it. Gotcha. Or you turn up late and someone like, assuming you're not a psycho because you're Canadian, so, you know, that's probably certainly. By default, we're not. Relatively low. We're too polite. You're too polite.

Exactly, yes. It'd be too tiring to be a psychopath in Canada. It's sold soup on me. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been sitting here. I shouldn't have been here. My fault. I got in the way of your suit.

The psychopath will lose his rag and can't control this. And likewise, if you turn up late, there's a chance they'll go, look, I've been sitting on my own like an idiot for 15 minutes. Whereas you and I would go, oh, I know, I only just got here myself. The traffic's terrible. Yeah. We don't fully know. You see, the value of what is going on in using a personal quality as a personal quality as a proxy for a decision which is simply too complicated to legalise or to reduce to numbers.

Also, it is, I'll completely agree, in economic terms, it's suboptimal, but if it leads to downside variance reduction, which is what we're really trying to do, we're not trying to optimize, we're trying to reduce the risk of downsize, downside variance, you know, and that's true in all sorts of things, investment strategy, etc. You know, the barbell approach. You know, first of all, make sure you don't, don't do anything disastrous, then after that, try and get lucky. You say it like it's a conscious thing, but I think it's an unhaunted. Oh, no, no, no, because if it is conscious, it's tacit. And it's probably a reverse signal that you're actually a bit off-kilter if you're

consciously doing that. In fairness, if you study social science matters, you've probably, but I agree with you that the, I mean, my wife occasionally gets been annoyed with me because I'll get, you know, I will literally apply Kaleb logic to decision. Just to give an example, I always argue that over 36 years, holidays where I've rented a car are better than holidays where I haven't. And my argument is you have more optionality. See?

Oh, interesting. So if you rented a car and you find the hotels a bit meh or the hotel's not in a great area, you can just get in the car and go and find a beach somewhere else and go there every day. You know, in other words, you know, so I deploy occasionally, will deploy these kind of Taleb lines. And, you know, I'll also say, let's fly from so and so because, you know, it's the satisfices airport. You're the one who I remember this.

You said you should always fly from the smallest airport that's convenient for you. Is that it? Oh, I'm a big, small airport thing, person. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, it's kind of interesting because airports are schizophrenic in a way because the clientele of an airport is, roughly speaking, a 50-50 mix.

between people who fly a hell of a lot and just want to get through the damn thing as quickly as they can, and people who only fly once a year who regard the trip to the airport as part of the holiday, and they love going through a shopping centre and looking at the MES outlets or whatever. And so airports are effectively catering for two totally disparate groups of traveller.

And you can separate these people in the security line effectively. You can, absolutely, you can separate them. And that's why, you know, in a... weird kind of way, I think. You notice sometimes that the queue for the priority lane in security is longer than the queue for the amateur lane, but frequent business travelers will still join the priority lane on the assumption that the people in front of them are more competent. I mean, there's a George Clooney up in the air, gag about that, right? And so it is very interesting because is it irrational if it's a very reliable mechanism? So, all right, one

example would be, I don't think it works very well nowadays because there are enough posh spivs around. But in the 19th century, if you were a posh and respected real estate age, you had a lot of reputational skin in the game in the local community, both commercially in people, you know, so you are highly vulnerable to reputational damage, both commercially and also socially. Because, you know, a small town or a, you know, would have been to large extent, a prestige economy, and therefore, you know, dealing with the posh local estate agent rather than some guy who claims to be cheap is not irrational. You know, the commission may be higher, whatever it may be, but in terms of reputational skin in the game as insurance against being,

you know, treated appallingly. And, you know, I think there's a kind of weird thing going on, which is that, you know, the job of the real estate agent is to some extent, to be the person who stays behind in the place where the house is sold to suffer the reputational consequences of, you know, of anything outrageous because the vendor of the house isn't really reputational vulnerable if they're moving 300 miles away. And so, you know, some of the role of these intermediaries is just highly complicated. But when I say that, you know, we fundamentally seem to attach very, very high weighting

to, for example, a call center experience versus website design. I'm not suggesting for a second, website design isn't really important. It's almost like there's some experiences that are sort of additive or subtractive, and then there's some that are multiplicative. Like you can multiply by zero or you can multiply by 10, like a difference in that one particular factor. There's a really interesting organization. I can't remember what they're called online.

They call this a brand quake. A brand quake is where you do. something. It could be resolving a problem really well. That would be a very good opportunity for a brand quake. The person has a problem. You put quite a lot of effort and intelligence into solving it very effectively for them. And then you ring them back to check that the problem has indeed been solved. Now, that would be an example of something. I'll give you the perfect story of this. My father, who is, you know, half Scottish and without stereotyping anybody, I mean, it was quite parsimonious with what he bought generally.

I mean, I'm not saying it's genetic, by the way. I'm just culturally, he was descended from long lines of Highland Scots who didn't get where they were today by, you know, splashing out. And he had, I think, three, when he died, he had three or four Dyson devices, which he'd bought from New in his home. He had one on each floor to save him carrying them upstairs. Now, these are, by any objective measure, pretty expensive vacuum cleaners.

One of the reasons he was so fanatically loyal was that Dyson, now, interestingly, I'm going to make a point here, which is a privately owned company, and do not underestimate the importance of this. PLCs or companies on the NASDAQ or the new stock exchange are incentivized to behave like psychopaths because they're optimized around short-term transactional value. not long-term relationship building. I think maybe the generalization is that, like, if they're private companies led by a founder, then they're not run by the finance department. It's so interesting. I think about this a lot where you have these short-term optimization

and long-term effectiveness are two completely different things. It's short-term money off versus long-term value-on. Yeah. Yeah. And so you can, there's always somebody making more money than you, but maybe they're cutting corners, maybe they're doing things that are unsustainable. And like you said,

you can always save money in the short term, but do you damage your brand? By the way, my theory is the primary reason for the success of these private companies. The secondary reason is they look after their consumers better because they're effectively, unwittingly, their practitioners

in the customer value movement, not the shareholder value movement. Well, Buffett had this saying where his directive, his letter, I guess, to all of his CEOs after he acquired, of the company was the only expectation I have for you is to treat this company as if you and your family have 100% of your money in it for 100 years and you can't take it out. Exactly that.

Yeah. And I think that that approach enables, even in a public company, that enables people to take long term, do the thing that's optimal. But actually, they do something, they do something, they look after their customers. And there is an interesting exception to this probably, which is, for example, Costco, which, and actually enterprise rent car is family owned, isn't it? Enterprise is family owned. Yeah.

In the, and I've told everybody this, in the IPA advertising effectiveness awards in the UK, my argument is that with the exception of P&G, Diageo, Unilever, marketing-led companies, I don't think that PLC is, what do you call them in, you know, publicly traded companies. I don't think they can actually do marketing very well. Because the requirement for short-term self-justification and numbers effectively overrides the real purpose of marketing, which is investment in long-term customer value. I think this is why we're generalizing a little bit, but this is why founders outperform. Even when they lead public corporations, they have the same pressures, the same analysts,

the same. But they also are considering posterity, aren't they? What is my legacy? I mean, it's interesting, actually, the German car industry, although their public companies are sort of family run, Aldi famously, which owns Trader Joe's, is basically owned by actually two German families, they had a huge feud. But something's going on there. One of the things they do is they look after their staff better. And I think when you look after your staff better, the customer notices. Well, this is part of the Costco thing.

So, I mean, but that comes from the Saul Price line of thinking, which when he started Fedmer, he sort of outlined the obligation of our business is we have a fiduciary relationship with a customer. Yeah. And Jim Senegal, who found to Costco was a student of Sol Price, and later on they would merge the companies. Of course, they did, didn't they? Yes, you're absolutely right. Yeah. And I think that's interesting, right, where you treat your employees better. Nice story from Dyson, which is family owned. In fact, I think family-run companies, this would include people like S.C. Johnson,

I think they should wear a badge. Do you feel what I mean? Just as you have a kite mark on British. Well, Loblaws is family owned, isn't it? For example, in Canada. Family control. Family control. McCain, family controlled. So what I was saying about the Advertising Effectiveness Awards, four out of the five gold winners, it's only every two years, this award, and it's very, very rigorously judged. Four out of the five winners, namely McCain, your Canadian heroes, McCain, Yorkshire Tea, spec savers, and Lathwaite, a wine company.

Four out of the five winners. The fifth one was Guinness, which is sort of a family company, in a sense. although it's owned by a Diageo. And so my point is that, you know, we should actually have a kite mark that allows consumers to prefer to buy from companies which aren't listed on some stock exchange somewhere

and hence aren't controlled by the finance function because they're more trustworthy. It's an interesting... I don't know if I agree with that, but it's interesting to... Is Rogers still family controlled? I mean, Canada's absolutely packed full of...

Well, now... Made entire, what about that? Increasingly, you get family... controlled, but not economically controlled. So you have like a dual-class. The Western family would control loblaws to some extent, even though they're not majority shareholder. Well, I think if you have a corporation that's hundreds of billions

and you control 10 or 15% of it, you effectively have control over the company. Of course, yeah. Ford Motor Company falls into that definition. I think the family or some, there's a particular class of shares. A lot of dual class coming. But hold on. I want to go back to Dyson first. What makes Tyson so effective at advertising?

Actually, it's not advertising, it's marketing and it's customer experience. What's the difference between marketing and advertising? Advertising is a subordinate part of marketing, and in many cases, even I've worked in advertising for 36 years, I want to think of myself, probably unsuccessfully, but I still aspire to be a marketer, not an advertising person, because advertising is a useful toolkit available to the marketer, and by the way, generally is pretty effective. But Peter Drucker, the purpose of business is to find and keep a customer profitably. That's the purpose of marketing.

It's to either create or find customers with whom, over time, you can engage in mutually advantageous relationships to mutual profit. That's it. So what makes Dyson so good at marketing? Well, the story I heard from someone who worked at Dyson for 12 years is that he was sitting in a presentation. James Dyson presiding. And they were presenting the call center sort of efficiency statistics. By the way, I'm absolutely fanatical about call centers because I'm terrified that in an AI age, people will try and effectively automate them.

I think what you should do instead is make them slightly smaller but a lot better. Because I don't think you can substitute for the human in cases of unusual problems, special circumstances, empathy, generally. Don't get me wrong, I think you can get AI empathy. I'm not suggesting that AI is going to be completely unempathic. But at some point, it's rather like the equivalent of, I want to speak to the manager. There will be situations where you want to speak to a person who can understand your specific situation and has the power to intervene to override the normal rules and regulations

to solve your problem because it is commonsensical to do so, even if, you know, are what service level agreements doesn't normally allow us to send out a replacement part. In this case, since your part is faulty... Someone who has the power to do the right thing. Got it exactly. And I think

that will ultimately you'll have to have the human as the last port of call on that. Also, your call center is the only way you can find out the problems that people can't solve anywhere else. Do you see what I mean? So there was a very smart person

I met at Microsoft, who when they took over some fairly niche Microsoft product, they put the call center in the middle of the development team. I mean, I would argue that the call center of British Airways should be on the same floor as the boardroom, because it's where you find out where you're going wrong with your existing customers who are the most important people. You know, people talk a lot about product market fit, sales tactics, or pricing strategy. The truth is success in selling often comes down to something much simpler, the system behind the sale. That's why I use and love shop pay, because nobody does selling better than Shopify. They've built the number one checkout on the planet, and with shop pay businesses see up to 50%

higher conversions. That's not a rounding error. That's a game changer. Attention is scarce. Shopify helps you capture it and convert it. If you're building a serious business, your commerce platform needs to meet your customers wherever they are. on your site, in store, in their feed, or right inside their inbox. The less they think, the more they buy. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. If you're serious about selling, the tech behind the scenes matters as much as the product. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout that I use.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash knowledge project, all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash knowledge project to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com slash knowledge project. Are you struggling to manage your projects at work, using lots of different tools for communication, task management, and scheduling? It doesn't have to be this hard. Basecamp is the refreshingly straightforward,

reliable project management platform. It's designed for small and growing businesses, so there's none of the complexity you get with software designed for enterprises. Complexity kills momentum. Basecamp clears the path so your team can actually move. Do away with scattered emails, endless meetings, and missed deadlines. With Basecamp, everything lives in one place, to-do lists, message boards, chat conversation,

scheduling, and documents. When information is scattered, attention is too. Basecamp brings both back together. Basecamp's intuitive design ensures that everyone knows what's happening, who's responsible, and what's coming next. My head of operation swears by this platform and and is the first person to suggest it to anyone. If you need another decorated referral, you should call her. Whether you're a small team or a growing business, Basecamp scales with you. Stop struggling, start making progress, get somewhere with Basecamp.

Sign up for free at basecamp.com. It's the map territory problem, right? So often the businesses are run by the map, which is like the spreadsheets, the volumes, the wait times, the whatever. But the territory is the customer calling in. And the problems... That's Kulbyszynski, isn't it? The map is not the territory.

Yeah, but they're experiencing. And so if you're not touching reality, you can get distorted by the map. But I want to go back to... You said, by the way, exactly the same thing Dan Davis did, which is one huge advantage of being a customer value company, not a shareholder value company, is that customers live in the real world, and therefore you are actually rooted in reality, whereas shareholders, by the way, not share owners, but the shareholders are principally interested in justifying their own existence to their investors. And therefore, they're dealing with a highly artificial

construct in terms of defining the value of a customer. But I think what's best for the shareholders is what's best for the customer. It's just the timeline mismatch that people have. So if you're timeline for... Well, it's incoherent, by the way. The shareholder value movement's totally incoherent, because over what time frame which shareholder is what's you optimizing for? It's a completely incoherent nonsense, which is very, very friendly to stock market analysts who want a ready supply of quarterly data so they can bullshit their way out of things. How valuable it is to people with pensions is a completely separate matter. Because one of the things it does is it prevents companies from innovating, effectively, and it prevents them for investing properly

in customer relationships. Okay, come back to Dyson. You were telling me this story. Somebody had worked there for 12 years. They were going, blah, blah, blah, average call time, blah, blah, blah. average wait time. And it was the standard kind of call center metrics about effectively how quickly can we get these people off the phone. I mean, it's a bit more sophisticated than that. You know, I'm sure there's some measure of satisfaction. But it was kind of evaluating the call center on an operational efficiency standpoint. And Dyson basically said, stop right now. You've got this all wrong. The way we should look at this is we should treat it as an honor if one of our customers chooses to get in touch with us and we should therefore respond to them

accordingly, as if we're flattered by the contact, not as if we're bothered by the interruption, or words to that effect. I'm putting words in his mouth, but this is roughly speaking what the person said happened in the meeting. That makes a lot of sense. And by the way, that's why my father had four Dyson's. Stingy man, though he was. I hope he won't mind if he's saying this, my late father. But every time he rang them up, which might have been only once every year, they did something astonishing. And they were really, really helpful. And they solved the problem. and the part arrived the next day. Sometimes they didn't even charge for the replacement part.

And therefore, he completely trusted those people and therefore was willing to pay an enormous premium, really, over other vacuum cleaners, which might have had the same notional, you know, effectiveness, precisely because of that trust. There's so much opportunity here, right? Oh, if you think of you competing in a world where we're moving to AI-driven call centers,

if I took the exact opposite approach, Which is, by the way, you should do both. A really, really good service organization allows for very streamlined efficient service for people who know exactly what they want. And extremely empathetic service for people who are undecided, uncertain, or find themselves in an unusual situation. And so you need to do both. And that's where I think the tech bros have got it all wrong

because they see the opportunity of tech as being a one-way street towards ever greater efficiency, streamlining. and let's face it, tech bros are not neurotypical in terms of what they want from things. When you allow tech bros too much power over decision making, along with their running dog lackeys in kind of management consultancy, you're optimizing for something which may be very, very distant from what your real world customers really care about. You're using tech crows as like a... No, no, no, no. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the people who work in this field are not representative of the whole human population, That's a reasonable assertion.

What is it you're representing when you say tech pro, though? Anybody in a tech industry, just as anybody in advertising myself included, is overweighted towards a belief in the ability of advertising to solve all problems. And I will truly admit that I am guilty as charged. However, and people don't get that much opportunity to convince other people of the rightness of their argument. What has happened is that in marketing, for example, The tech companies, the consulting firms that sell stacks.

And I owe a lot of this to a guy called Adele Borky, very interesting self-taught Libyan marketing writer, former boxer. Adel Borky, and I coined the phrase techno plasmosis, by analogy with toxoplasmosis, which is tech people and consultants have taken over the finance department so that the marketing metrics, the finance department has faith in and demands from marketing are not those metrics which are most conducive to building brand and customer value over time. They're the metrics which are most conducive to selling tech solutions to the companies. What are other metrics that are? Well, it's all about short-term transactional bottom of the funnel, click through, you know,

how can you shovel money to meta in a slight, more efficient way. It's not about long-term value creation at all, right? Now, don't get me wrong, all that bottom of the funnel short-term transactional stuff is very important to get right. I'm not disparaging it, but it's only a third of the game. Right. And they're not interested in the other two-thirds of the game because they don't make money if someone spends money on their call center or, you know, upgrades their call-center staff or allows the call-center staff to call out. It's sort of like cybersecurity. It's seen as a cost. It's a cost. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, Bonnie Blue, would do really well in this

because she's all about the numbers and not about the quality of the relationship. Funny enough, she did work in NHS finance procurement, ironically. No, finance recruitment, actually. She recruited people for National Health Service finance. So her approach to sex is merely an extrapolation of what she learned, I think, recruiting finance people for the National Health Service.

All about the quantity, not about the value creation, the relationship. I like this quantification bias thinking. I mean, Buffett, okay, you're quite rightly your hero, is he was obsessed with the quality of the management of companies with whom he invested, wasn't he? What, I mean, he was obsessed with personal factors. I've read a lot in, I think, I'm going to give a nuanced answer here. I don't know the answer, so I'll preface that with that. I did read a lot about what he used to do in the 60s, and he used to hire like private investigators.

And what he was trying to determine, I don't think it was anything about the person other than, does what they say line up with who they are? And if the answer is yes, I can deal with that because I know what to expect. And if the answers, no, if they're, they can't go to work and, you know, claim to be a penny pincher. Because if they go to work and say they're going to cut costs, but they're driving around with a Ferrari or whatever. Like, this is a thing that it doesn't line up. And so I feel like he was always just trying to assess the predictability of people, if that makes sense. In other words, by looking at their consistency.

Consistency. Did the management team do what they said they were going to do? The balance sheet changes over, you know, like he was a very, he had to different emphasis on things than people, I think, realize. And I think with a lot of his investments, I mean, my personal take is he was looking for predictability. and it wasn't about massive disruption. It was never about things being turned around.

He got out of that in the late 60s with diversified refilling was the last real turnaround situation they sort of got themselves into. They exited quickly. And when I... They go, boom, did they quite? Well, they didn't really get burned, but I was talking to Munger about this over dinner one day. And he's like, we just realized that we made a mistake.

We were never going to make a lot of money in this business. and it was highly competitive and we had no edge and so they got out as quickly as they could. And I think that the predictability of what he buys, at least his long-term holdings, like if you look at that, I think it's really interesting because it's like you can kind of see it, the railroad. Yes, he's not going to be using the railroad in 50 years. That's a great example. So it would be unbelievably difficult to build a competing one.

But you can also, you can lever it if it's predictable. And leverage is this interesting thing where he says they don't do a, a lot and they don't when you look at the whole company but on the railroad for instance they'll put a decent amount of debt in the railroad because they know with the earnings it's very predictable and that's the same as the energy where they're putting a lot of capital they put a lot of debt in and i talked to this guy in um nova scotia john brag and he sort of did the same thing and so he created oxford frozen foods he's this incredible stories this billionaire from this small town of 1100 people he started. I've been to Nova Scotia. What's it called Oxford, Nova Scotia? It's called Oxford, Nova Scotia.

And he started not one, not two, but three multi-billion dollar companies from the small town of 1100 people. If he's still there? He's still there. Yeah, I like that. Such a great guy to you. And it was fascinating to talk to him because he basically was like, look, you know, he owns North America's largest private telecommunications company. And he said, I wasn't afraid of debt at all. And we levered up massively. We went all. all in multiple times, acquiring more assets, acquire. But if there's something more volatile, he gets very nervous about the debt. So he wouldn't do it if there was volatility, but he also had this thing so counterintuitive to what you hear on Wall Street, which is like, I don't mind paying more.

You know, I don't mind paying the most. And I was like, really, that surprises me. And he's like, well, a lot of these things only come up once. I don't get another shot at it. And if I'm a private company, I don't have public company shareholders, and it takes me, you know, five years versus three years to get my mom out of the deal. Why do I care? I'm never going to be offered this again. And they're not going to build another one. No, no, no. So when it comes to fiber optic in the ground, he's like, it's getting harder and

harder to do. What is this company, the Canadian company, Calicom's? It's Eastling Cable communication. God is. I've heard. Yeah. And so, but they, not only do they deliver cable to a large portion of Canada, but they own a lot of infrastructure that people aren't aware of. And he's like, well, what difference does it make? And I've been chewing on that nugget ever since. And, you know, you can apply this from a marketing perspective as well, right? If you, if you have a client or go back to real estate for a sec, you have a client who's looking at a lakehouse or a cabin or a cottage or whatever you call them in in the UK or in the United States, and you get a property and you say my budget is, I don't know, say 500,000. And you find a property that's seven. And is it worth

splurging on the $700,000 property or whatever it is. And the answer is, is this like a once-in-a-generation property that I'm never going to have the shot at again. And if you can frame things... It's also much more likely to be scarce, the rarer you get, generally. And then overpaying, you make overpaying seem rational. And in a way, it kind of is rational, where it's like, well, this is only going to come up once.

So, like, I have a friend actually going through this now. they're looking at buying a family cottage. And I'm like, how do you think about these things? He's like, I saw this one. It was perfect. But it was a little more money than, and I brought this up. Having a cottage on a lake on which yours is the only cottage is the kind of gold standard for Canadian property. That would be the true.

I have a lot of lakes. Yes. I'd always heard that as a kind of. But it's sort of like, what do you want? If you want a second property, you want proximity, so it's easy to get to. You want privacy. so there's not a lot of things around it and these things just don't come up very often in many lakes as we have

I mean the prime properties come up maybe once every five or six years per lake and and as Cain said in the long term we're all dead and we're all dead anyway an interesting aside here but when we sat down we were talking about

high trust versus low trust societies and introducing friction yeah I'm wondering spend a beat on that for a second Well, I met someone you must interview, by the way, called Philip K. Howard, who's written various books called Life Without Lawyers. He's just written a book which is coming out right now called, I think it's Can Do, which is restoring the spirit of American can do. And he argues that a large part of economic decline and social malaise has come from the over-intrusion of law and regulation into practices which, should properly be left to subjective human judgment, that we've created a culture where people are so afraid of making a subjective decision that they fall back on often totally inappropriate rules and regulations. And there are a whole bunch of people who are employed not always by the

government, just as much by the private sector, who are much more interested in adherence to approve procedure than they are in quality of outcome. Because you can't get fired for following the rule. You can't give me in trouble. You told me to follow this proceed. And the common sense would be to opt out at some point in certain situations and use your brain and judgment. But I do that. If I have very little a head-eyed parapet, there's no upside. And there's considerable reputational risk and career risk from doing something slightly perverse and different. But there are a whole

bunch of arguments. First of all, an awful lot of quality human decision-making of necessity has to be tacit and instinctive, not regulatory. There are various people, I think it might be Michael Pallaniy, who says, most of life is like a kaleidoscope. We never completely encounter the same situation twice. And therefore, regulating for the universal, when in fact the great evolutionary gift of the human brain

is adapting to context, is inherently, lawyers love it, of course, because they make money out of this. arguably, the legal system, particularly in the United States, has strayed into all kinds of areas which were once settled by two humans amicably discussing something. And possibly finding a creative resolution to the trade-off, that's replaced by, effectively, we will take this to a legal decision. And that starts to infect, particularly because there's no tort law reform in the US.

And that's partly because I was told yesterday, trial lawyers are among largest donors to the Democratic Party because they resist any kind of tort law reform. This has led to things that should be solved through our evolved human talent for conflict resolution, being solved through a totally inappropriate application of legal structures, to a situation which is, in many cases, not really. adequately captured by law, or where a legal decision is made, which makes perfect sense within one setting, but which sets a precedent which leads to ludicrous second order consequences. So, for example, if you accept the fact that a, I think has happened in one of Philip K. Howard's cases, someone demanded the trees were dropped down in their streets because one of their grandchildren was allergic to the nut that came off the tree. the argument would be that if you accept that,

which may seem kind-hearted and generous within that particular frame of reference, ultimately you've opened up the path to widespread deforestation because nobody can grow a tree anywhere to which anybody could claim to be allergic. There was an interesting case in England where someone broke into a theme park or some park of some kind. and then while drunk dove into a pond which wasn't really deep and hurt themselves and then sued in the lower courts they said there should have been a notice warning of the shallow water because you could reasonably anticipate this problem and then it went up to the high whatever it was

the law lords at the time and they said if you took if you took this ruling to its uh you know natural consequences, you would have no lakes. You know, you would have no swimming, you would have no swings, you'd have no playgrounds, because everything would have to be girt around with warnings about every possible anticipated negative consequence that could arise from this part of the environment. And so what happens is that you've created a kind of idea, I suppose, where the legal solution has become the default when it should, in fact, be the last resort. What happened to commentants? Well, this is the argument being that your fellow countryman, what's his name, Rolston-Soul, John Rolston-Saw, have you come across him?

You Canadians totally underage yourselves, you know, you produce wonderful people, and you're always trying to import people like me from the UK or people from the US. John Rolston-Saw wrote this book, which I think is called Voltaire's Bastards. And he argues that human brains have evolved with a variety of... of mental capabilities, only one of which is the capacity for reason. There's also the capacity for imagination, creativity, common sense, you know, etc. We have a whole variety of different mental mechanisms at our disposal gifted to us by, you know, a few million years of evolution as a social species. And yet we've made rationality the gold standard. This is what's weird about working in advertising, by the way, and I think it's probably similar to theoretical physics,

and it's probably similar to entrepreneurialism, which is what's unusual about those fields is that rationality is the bronze standard. In advertising, if someone says, you know, this is the problem and you come up with a completely rational solution, people don't go, right, that's perfect, let's go and do it, as they would do in a finance setting or a compliance setting. In most of decision-making in institutions,

rationality, i.e., quality of argumentation is the gold standard. In advertising, if you came up with a rational ad, people will go, yeah, it's all right, but can you do a bit better? You know, is there an ad that says the same thing, but in a more emotionally engaging way? Is there an ad that says the same thing in a way that's funny? Is there an ad that says this in a way people will remember or will act on? So what is funny about being an advertising creative, you know, I spent 20 years of my life either in or managing those departments, is, you know, the rational solution is where you start. You use it as a springboard to something better. There's a famous quote, you know, fascinatingly from Neil's Bohr,

who said, you're not thinking you're merely being logical, isn't it? I think you'll know that. He was an interesting guy, wasn't he, in terms of his, because he also was the person who said the opposite of a good idea. In boring physics, the opposite of a good idea is wrong. But in high-level physics, the opposite of a good idea might be another good idea. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

What can we learn from marketing from the madman era that's still true today? I think there was an understanding then and the remuneration of agencies respected this because you were paid on commission. So if you had a big idea and you came up with the campaign and the client spent millions running the campaign, you made money from that campaign for years after you'd conceived it. So it was rather like having royalties on a book. Oh, okay. We didn't realize that at the time. And then media independence came along, and so we had to be paid by the hour, like lawyers,

management consultants, and we've never recovered because it's a catastrophic way to be paid. And the reason it's a catastrophic way to be paid, my argument is that marketing is actually fat-tailed. So is innovation, R&D, pharmaceutical research, science, okay? In other words, five to ten percent of what you do delivers perhaps 110 percent of the value. and therefore paying people by the hour and demanding that every quantum of effort has to be matched to a quantum of value creation in some neat proportion. This is, so the way market, never mind advertising that, okay, right, let's look at the whole of marketing as a discipline within an organization of which advertising is not a not necessarily very important part. You know, for a lot of organizations, it may be, you know, relatively trivial, what they actually spend on bought communication. On the other hand, you know, how you design your reception or, you know, whatever.

That's still affected the application of psychology to value creation. Let's say you have a brilliant idea, and the value of that idea goes on for 10 years. I've seen this happen all the time. The agency, let's say an agency had the idea, it may well have been the client who had that idea. They are held responsible for every single unit of cost they incur, year by year by year by year. you cannot offset any of those costs against the value you created in 2023 by having a huge idea. Let me give you an example. There's an enormous idea for a very large, enormous American, let's say, fast-moving consumer goods company.

There's an idea conceived by Ogle v. Australia. It has made that company in excess of a billion dollars in the last 10 years. It's still running. It runs in something like 100 markets. Still useful today. for that idea, the agency in Australia got paid $350,000 Australian dollars. Or rather, that's what they made from it. So in other words, you have a billion-dollar idea.

You get to buy a small flat in a crap part of Sydney. Now, what I'm saying is that this is not me bleating about the advertising industry. It's saying that anything like R&D or marketing, which is fat-tailed, in other words, a small percentage of what you do. It's Jeff Bezos's point about in business, in baseball, you can only score for in business you can score a thousand. In marketing, when you score a thousand, and the purpose, half the purpose of marketing is not operational, gradual incremental improvement. It's finding another way to hit the ball out of the park and score a hundred. If you cannot

claim the credit for that, except to the extent that it delivers value in the quarter in which you had the idea, or the financial year in which you have the idea, you are underfunding your marketing effort. So it's like saying to, imagine you went to Jake. Rowling and said, yep, you can have the royalties on the Harry Potter books, but only on the first edition. And consequently, long-term marketing ideas, when you're paid by the hour, or when you're evaluated by the quarter, as marketers would be. Now, you wouldn't go into a pharmaceutical research company and said, you invent a blockbuster drug this week. No, or you're all fired. You accept the fact that you spend a load of money effectively. Okay,

this is the brutal truth. You don't find entrepreneurs in chess clubs. You find entrepreneurs in casinos. They're playing poker. They're playing backgammon. You know, they're playing games of chance with an occasional very high payoff. And a lot of life is exactly like that.

But you don't know where the huge payoff's going to come in advance. The people who are running these organisations for the benefit of financial predictability are trying to make it chess. They're trying to turn it into a reductionist game where the most you can score is one for a win. They're trying to put it ceiling on. They're trying to effectively to pretend it's a high variance mechanism,

a low variance mechanistic, predictable process. 50% of your effort in life, once you insured the fact that you're not going to starve to death, die, etc., you know, you've looked after your children, should be attempts to get lucky. In other words, Nassim would say, I love this phrase, increasing your surface area exposure to positive upside optionality. You know, finding opportunity.

But hold on for one side. I want to go back to this. I want to think about this out loud here. Maybe I'm wrong with a book. It's great. I write a book once. I can sell it for the next 100 years, assuming I've earned out of my road.

Yeah, if you have a great marketing idea, which continues to add value for the next 15 years, it's different. Some of that credit should be offset against your current marketing costs. Fair? The difference is marketing also can go the other way. And, like, Jaguar, perhaps, or Cracker Barrel, I don't know if you followed the, so you can create negative value. It's not like the baseline is zero and there's only upside.

And the upside is like one to one million. You can actually destroy a company through marketing. The case is okay. And advertising. Some of those are going to defend the companies. Oh, you please too. Yeah, yeah. Because in the case of Bub Light.

Are you defending Bucklight? I want to hear them. Yeah, no, no, no. They could not have necessarily anticipated that because it was confected outrage. Look, I'm politically on the right, okay? I get just as angry from confected outrage on the right, which is, oh, they've gone woke, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-dum,

when, you know, you're merely showing, you know, a mix of ethnic groups in your advertising or something. This is bull-shund, right? And the right to do it and the left do it. There's confected outrage on the left, I would argue about American Eagle, and it's confected outrage on the right. It's done for signalling purposes by a very narrow group of people.

Do those cases actually damage the business? I don't know the figures. Gillette did. There was an extremely... Now, this wasn't confected outrage because Gillette ran an advertisement. They realized they had to move on, perhaps, from the best a man can get,

despite the fact, obviously, that their customer base is overwhelmingly male for fairly obvious reasons. And they produced an ad which, I would argue, and even my wife, would argue, was needlessly insulting towards men, in that it conflated the Me Too movement with barbecuing. In other words, it seemed to take a definition of toxic masculinity, which went the

whole spectrum from things which all right-thinking men would quite rightly condemn, to things which, for example, two boys having a small scrap on a patch of grass, which, I don't All primates playfights. It's not, you know, don't get me wrong. Sorry, if there's a kid wailing on another kid with a plank of wood, you know, I'll be quick to condemn it. But I'm not totally, you know, the on play-fighting thing, barbecuing, I don't think is particularly objectionable. And that was a case where it was almost a kind of active, deliberate effrontery to your core target audience. The butterlight thing to put it in context was a influencer marketing campaign

of which most people in the company were probably unaware, where they sent personalized Canada's and Budlite to a variety of different influences, one of whom was Dylan Mulvaney. Now, I've got to confess about this. As a Brit, you're Canadian. The gender thing isn't quite the flashpoint in the UK or Canada as it is in the United States.

Did you know, for example, that when it came out, I find this quite interesting. In Britain, we've had pantomime for 200 years. Men dressing up as women, you know, women dressing up as attractive women dressing up. as young boys, Shakespeare, da-da-da-da-da-dam, you know, cross-dressing. Some like it hot was a highly controversial film with all the studios in the United States when it came out because it involved men dressing up as women.

Now, in the UK, my grandmother went to see it. She was a sort of conservative woman in a Welsh provincial town. It would not have occurred to her, literally, that there was anything controversial about this at all. It was simply funny. I think what maybe has changed is the meaning we ascribed to it. Well, in this case, my argument, was, okay, all it was,

they hadn't made Dill and Malvaney the face of Budd Light. Right. You know. And I think creating these cultural flashpoints through confected outrage is something to be disparaged when the rights do it and when the left do it.

I think it's equally, I think it's equally absurd because you have, in any communication, you have to understand context and the intention of the person producing the communication. Now, in the case of Jaguar, they wanted it to look unlike, I would argue, I mean, I was talking to Rick Rubin who was in Hawaii and he'd heard about the Jaguar ad.

It wasn't an ad, by the way. You know that, didn't you? It never ran as an advertisement. It was a brand film they showed at the launch of the car. And then I had a right-wing podcast in the UK going, you know, it utters the most, you know, outrageous, anti-conservative sentiment, which is copy-nothing. copy nothing was the exhortation of Sir William Lyons who founded Jaguar you know I think he said it in 1932 he was the original founder of the car company you've also got to understand their position what are they trying to do so I'm just explaining this just in wider in wider context which is they fundamentally made a mistake I can't blame them for doing it because we all do this we all benchmark against our most obvious competitor don't benchmark against your most obvious competitor all you'll do is make you make yourself a copy of them.

And Jaguar was always trying to compete head-to-head with BMW, Mercedes, and Audi. And bluntly put, because of the scale of those entities, it was always going to lose. Because if you're the kind of person who's happy to buy a BMW, an Audi, or a Mercedes, and you're also happy to buy a Jaguar, you'll probably end up buying an Audi and Mercedes or a BMW. Simply to, you know, because of scale, winner takes all effects, all manner of other things. So if Jaguar needs to survive in the electric car age, making its cars in the UK, which is a Jaguar lover, ideally want them to continue to do, they've got to find a different kind of target audience rather than benchmarking themselves

against, you know, companies which have gains to scale and a whole load of advantages, they can't replicate. And so going for what you might call the car of choice of the wealthy, younger, creative class. Reasonable bad. It's a reasonable bad. Okay. I work in advertising. Okay.

I'm a massive car lover. I really, really like, for example, the Chris Bangalera BMWs I thought were magnificent. I really, really like this because I can't buy one. And the reason is because part of my shtick, okay, is being a bit left field. And if I drive around in an Audi, it kind of screams I work in financial services.

Right. Okay. You know, I aspire to managerial roles. Do you see what I mean? Yeah. And so, you know, I've always bought slightly weird cars. I don't know. I've been trying to know what you have.

What do you have back in Canada? I've got to ask. I have a test phone. Yeah, fine. You see that, you know, do you have a sticker on it that says I bought this before Elon went mad or anything like that? So the Canadians don't key your car. It's been keyed three times. It's been keyed by and run into by somebody I can only assume intentionally

in the past. In Ottawa. Oh, yeah, in the past. Well, Ottawa is this hotbed of Elon haters, is it? It's interesting because my mom got me one of those stickers. And I was like, I don't have a problem with Elon. Like, I don't understand this. I'm not going to put that on my car. And I want to relate this to sort of evolution.

I agree. It's a little like biting the hand that feeds you, is it? Well, it's also, like, going back to the Jaguar, but we can tie these two things together, right? And I think we need a variation. in approaches. And the point of this is like we need more people like Elon, not fewer in the world, whether you agree with him or not. This is how society progresses. We need differences. We have an environment and people thrive or don't thrive in that environment. Ideally, we have some sort of social safety net to catch people if they don't succeed. Not ideally. That's essentially in any

civilized society. And so Jaguar, the same thing. They're taking a bat as a company. They're being different. They occupy an environment and niche. If you think about it, they survive as Land Rover because they have effectively created the category they dominate. Right. So I want more variety. This is where your wonderful compatriot, Rodrell Martin, raised me upon him, okay, makes this point that economists have this fantasy of the world of companies in direct competition driving down price and increasing efficiency while supplying the same thing, which is based on a false premise that people know what they want to begin with. Now, I would argue when you don't create differentiation, everybody suffers. Now, let me explain because if you have a differentiated car

market, it makes the car market more valuable overall to investors because, you know, there is more variety within the market. It benefits the companies because they can achieve a reasonable profit on what they do because it has some degree of scarcity or uniqueness. And it benefits the consumer because the consumer ends up with more choice. What often happens is you have something like a regulated telecoms market or you have a regulated insurance market and everybody is forced to compete along the same dimension and what you end up with is just red red ocean competition and nobody wins. But where I was going with all of this is that going back to the Mad Men era and how you can create a billion dollar profit for the company and only get paid like 300k.

You need to watch that. Yeah. And I I've never actually watched Madman, but I think the point that I was getting at is you can also create negative value. And like, how do you ascribe for the negative value? I can speak for Gillette where the evidence was that it was, and by the way, the research showed it was deeply problematic with a large sway of people. Has American Eagle suffered? I doubt it. In some ways, you could argue it's an ingenious marketing strategy, which is that you press the hot buttons of 1% of the population. So they then repeat your message. accompanied by their own signaling outrage.

Meanwhile, you get free media coverage practically everywhere. But maybe I'm naive. I mean, the immediate budget for that Jaguar film, you realize was zero. Maybe I'm naive. Like, the Sydney-Sweeney American Eagle thing, I think we're just going back to normal, aren't we?

And, like, we've sort of deviated in the last few years, and that seems more... Maybe it's akin to my time and my frame and, like, when I was brought up. But, like, nothing about that struck me. as rage or on either side. Like, when I looked at that, I was like, oh, great. It's just like an advertisement.

It's a pub. Yeah, like, it just, I didn't even think more, I didn't think there was more to it. I just saw, oh, this is great, right? There's a kind of weird sensitivity signaling, which generally has nothing to do with the groups you are trying to protect, which is just, it's sometimes called a purity spiral, where you effectively signal your moral or political purity by signaling extraordinary heightened sensitivity to anything that might conceivably offend someone else, even if the group on whose behalf you claim to be campaigning is completely unconcerned by it. But the opposite of her,

whatever that would be, would not cause rage in me either. It would just, I wouldn't even think about the brand, you know, it would just be like another thing that flies by. I don't understand understand why we're so hair-triggered at this moment in time, unlike maybe never before. You have to really watch it in, and I've noticed this in certain people on the right, which is, I think it's fundamentally dangerous to invest too much of your own identity in a political standpoint, to the point where I've seen it in people, both sides, become, effectively deranged. Now, you could say that's the effect of the people who attack them and that the derangement wouldn't happen and wouldn't be necessary in a different kind of

media environment. What's different about today? Why is everybody on such a hair trigger? Why do we identify so strongly with extremes? I'm going to say, actually, that everybody always blames social media. I would argue that the mainstream media, it is always in your interests, and this is a problem in journalism, it's always in your interest to provoke a fight, because then you have something to cover. Nobody's interested in reading about peace and harmony. They're interested in reading about discord and argument and dispute. By the way, that's an evolutionary tendency. If we're sitting here and we heard a fight break out across the street, we'd be there with our noses pressed up against the glass. If we heard, you know, people

amicably discussing the weather, we wouldn't pay at the slightest attention, you know, where we've fundamentally evolved to pay attention to conflict. And so the only difference is the tools available to us? And the extent to which social media provide the mainstream media with the tool. I mean, in 1975, if you wanted to find someone who was outraged by the Sydney-Sweeney advertisement, you'd actually have to do some legwork, wouldn't you? Now it's one search on X or, you know, blue sky or whatever it might be. may be. Willful misunderstanding is another thing that, you know, is another technique which is

deployed. It's perfectly obvious. I mean, you know, it's perfectly obvious that that ad is not intended to mean Sidney Sweeney is the flower of Aryan womanhood, okay? It's not, you know, it's not that. Now, in a perfect world, had they had more budget, maybe they would have had three celebrities of different ethnicities or genders or whatever it may be. But nonetheless, this business where you effectively affect to be outraged by things. Well, I'll give you a lovely story about this. It's I always forget. Which is, I don't think phrases like uncomfortable or offended or inappropriate.

You know that you get these things where, you know, your presence here, people would find it, you know, would feel unsafe, triggering. Okay. They don't really belong in the public sphere. You know, there are matters which for, you know, a few hundred thousand years, we simply sorted it out amongst ourselves. We didn't make recourse to the university dean or the Supreme Court in cases where we were bothered by things because you accepted that's just part of life. And we were allowed then creatively to find ways to get along without recourse to some sort

of spurious rule book. Consequently, you know, I don't think those phrases like in a, I mean, this is one of the worst things that happens. You say, you know, was accused. someone has described in the newspaper as being accused of inappropriate behaviour. Now, I now have no idea. I mean, I've literally had to book people for speaking engagements. You go on their Wikipedia page, and it says accused of inappropriate behavior.

Now, I have no idea whether they're the next Epstein, right? Or whether they told a knock-knock joke that two people found unpleasant. Do you have them in Canada, knock-knock, yeah, at the fact, at least they're not being complete. Because otherwise, I could have been misunderstood there, you see. But I now have no idea, literally no idea whether the person's guilty of some utterly trivial infraction which would only have offended 0.01% of the population. Or they're not guilty at all.

Or somebody just made up an accusation and the accusation became the framing and the framing became the narrative. So it strikes me as highly problematic in the UK. I'm not one of these people who are Bowie Vabs. I don't believe that free speech is completely dead in the UK. But there are worrying signs where people who make a complaint, on the basis that they found something disturbing

can then call in the... That's not a police matter, unless it involves a direct threat of physical action. Yeah. I mean, simply being disquieted by something can't be. But we've gotten to this point, you know, to varying degrees in varying different countries where, you know, we don't tolerate people

who have different ideas than us. And we saw this last week play out in the U.S. with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And so whether you agree or disagree with him and his views... I have to confess, I was only dimly aware of his existence beforehand, perhaps, because I'm a Brit. I mean, I'd heard the name, and I knew he... We see the same thing in Canada with sort of our politics, right?

I imagine you see it in the U.S. too, where media is definitely intolerable of one position and more favorable of the other. And you can analyze this. can study it, you could do a PhD on this, it exists. And it seems like we're just not capable of having to think for ourselves and we're not capable of having reasoned discussion of things and being friends with people. It used to be back in the 30s, the 40s, the Churchill era, both sides of the house or would talk to each other. They would have dinner together. They would find common ground. How many of these people who are hypersensitized on one side or the other?

How many of them really exist? By the way, don't include things like, one of the things I find really disturbing is the practice of the media describing people who say oppose uncontrolled immigration and describe them as a far-right group. Oh, and well,

because that is that, you know, normal people are described as far-right-right. So in other words, if you literally take an opinion which may be held, by the way, from my own personal standpoint, I'm pretty benignly disposed to immigration within reason. However, I also believe in democracy, and if a significant proportion of the

population disagrees with me, I owe it to them to hear them out because their circumstances are different to my own. You know, I might be beneficially, you know, one of the slightly annoying things is people who are very rich people who are pro-immigration because they say their Polish housekeeper is wonderful. Well, that is an experience of immigration, which is not shared perhaps by any means by the other 98% of people. to the fact that depending on where you are, you see the world differently. That's inevitable. And the job of a democracy is to accept the majority opinion even when it goes against your own. And so describing and vilifying an opinion which is held by a fairly large sway of the population,

regardless, by the way, the rights and wrongs are the whole thing. I'm not even getting into this now. It's deeply dangerous because people go, well, if that makes me far right, it looks like I'm far right. I mean, insulting, calling people deplorables is a terrible, terrible way of getting deplorables to gang up against you. And then people don't speak up and they tell their opinions and then you lose debate and you lose and then you lose perspective because you don't hear the other side of it so you think there is no other side. And anybody who believes that might be an idiot. Give an example on this debate, which changed my mind a bit, very, very good Oxford economist called Paul Collier wrote this economically balanced. assessment of general migration and made some, you know, pointed out that on both sides of what you might call the balance sheet, it was immeasurably more complicated. For example, if Nigeria

trains doctors who then immediately who fit to the United States, how is that possibly a good thing overall in that a poor country trains doctors who move to a rich country, which arguably has enough doctors from a country which doesn't have enough, that's not, you know, you have to, because that depends on how you frame it, right? Because another way to look at that, and I'm not arguing for this by any stretch, is that they come here, they make a lot of money, and they send that money home to their family. I agree. All Collier said is, look, this is inordinately more complicated. Yeah, it is. One of the things he said is the right, for example, of recent immigrants to family reunification is a bit dubious because you're giving someone a

right which the native population do not have. So I can't pick five Canadians and get them British citizenship. You see? I've yet to meet somebody who totally disagrees with all immigration. It's a matter of what reasonable immigration looks like. And also it should be decided by someone other than human rights lawyers. Oh, yeah, definitely. I would probably agree, because, you know, fundamentally as a branch of the law, that is not a partial entity. Because human rights lawyers, if he's, you know that great phrase of, is it St. Clair Lewis or someone, which is, it is difficult to get someone to disbelieve something when their salary is dependent on believing it. And just as management consultants have a huge

incentive to sell in digital transformation programs to their clients, and therefore we have a culture in business, which more or less doesn't assume that any money spent on tech is money well spent. They don't look at the opportunity cost. Should we have a better call sector? Buffett and Munger had a good way to sum this up, which is never ask your

barber if you've needed to hack out. And it's the same thing, a human rights lawyer, it is in their interests for human rights to capture a greater and greater part of public discourse at the expense of democratic bodies. And consequently,

it's you know you're not really in the you're not really in the dispensation of justice you're in the amplification of grievance business it's very different i want to switch gears a little bit my kids had a question for you oh good okay go on a few years ago we're in italy on vacation we walked into uh louis valetans store and they saw a purse and they were asking me what makes somebody spend i think it was i don't know 20 or 30 000 euros on a purse. And I had given them an answer, but they wanted me to ask you. Some of those things, by the way, weirdly, you can resell them for more than the purchase price. Because in some cases, the Kelly bag, for example, they won't sell it to you until you've been a fairly reliable

customer of theirs for some time. And therefore, the price on eBay is higher than the prices they charge in the store. So, by the way, it's not, it's not, it's complicated. But they're Febblen goods. Effectively, a large proportion of goods depend for their value on being perceived to be expensive. So what goes into that, though? Because they were, we're all guilty of it to a degree. No, but they were talking about the store and the service and the lighting. My wife just came back from, you know, somewhere where there was quite a nice night dress in Harrods, I think was in London, which was £1,800. Okay. Now, you have to remember that there are quite a lot of goods where the purpose of the...

good emotionally is to say, well, let's take the end line. I often think there's a lot of hidden truth in advertising end lines. The L'Oreal end line, because I'm worth it. Some part of that is the person advertising to themselves. So, you know, when you drive around in your brand new, blinged up Tesla, albeit slightly keyed, okay, you're not actually doing it to pick up chicks. I mean, maybe you are. I have no idea what you do in your private time. Okay. But if you, let's say you bought a bright red sports car, yes, one purpose of it in a particular particular group would probably be senally. I visibly have

resources to spare. But quite a large part of this stuff is actually signaling to ourselves which is because I'm worth it. I deserve this. I'm the kind of person who drives this. It provides me with a kind of ego boost

a sense of reassurance, whatever it may be. And so consequently if you think about part of the reason why bags became very expensive is that very high-end clothing can only be worn in quite specific situations. On the other hand, a bag, like a man's watch, can be worn every day. So one of the reasons why those things are expensive is to use a very interesting measure

cost per entertainment hour. I wear a Cassio G shock, I think it was 130 quid, because I actually decided, as a gross rationalist, that the best watch is one that's cheap enough to wear in the shower, so you don't have to take the fucking thing off every day. But Paul Dolan, Professor Paul Dolan, who's the behavioural scientist at London School of Economics, I met him when I first met him, I said, I'm intrigued because you've worked with Daniel Kahneman on happiness, and I notice you wear a Rolex. And he said, no, no, no, he said it's extremely good value for money because it makes me feel good every single day when I put it on.

And in 20 years' time, I'll give it to my son, 21 years' time, I don't know how old his son was, I'll pass it on to my son, who can enjoy exactly the same thing. There's a repository of meaning. Now, cost per entertainment hour is quite interesting because it was used to explain the fact that relatively poor young people will spend $90,100 on a computer game, which seems like a lot of money until you realize that they might play that game for 80, 90, 100 hours or more. Super cheap. So it's super cheap.

I mean, compared to going to the cinema where it's $10 per entertainment hour, more if you buy popcorn. So it's quite an interesting metric. I mean, one of the things that used to make me really annoyed in Britain was when rich people got really snarky about poor people having large televisions. And I said, look, if you haven't got much money, TV is a source of long-term entertainment. It's spectacularly cheap.

So having a really good television on which to enjoy it, because you're not going to go Porsche racing at the weekend. You know, you're not going to be there, you know, effectively going to Glinebourne or popping up to the bloody, you know, metropolitan opera. Therefore, having a really large television is a perfectly rational decision. Go deeper on this truth in endline signaling to ourselves when we purchase something. Jeffrey Miller is fundamentally right that a lot of what we're doing is to advertise ourselves to other people. And the mating mind and spent two books I think you really should read because they're extremely good.

A third book by my compatriot will store, the status game, which you must know. Have you ever read it? Fantastic. Oh, I've heard of it. And I have to admit, I'm going to, the only caveat I give to reading these books, a bit like reading the selfish gene, is when you read them, you are at, you know, if you're someone of any kind of sensitivity, you are at risk of experiencing depressive episodes after reading them because, not because they're not true, but because they are. And you go, God, you know, am I really that shallow? You know, I do things because they feel good. I explain why I do them.

but deep down the evolutionary and emotional reason I'm doing these things is really to show off or to establish, you know, some sort of one-upmanship or status. It's kind of complicated. Do I buy one piece of conspicuous consumption, as is argued by various people like Lord Leyard in the UK, do I make my neighbours less happy if I buy a new, a better car? Because what I've done is I've changed their comparative frame and therefore my pleasure comes at the expense. of theirs. Now, that's not, I don't think that's totally simple. I think if you were a real car obsessive and your next door neighbor bought a Ferrari, you'd actually be delighted because

you could go out and talk about talk vectoring and an adaptive air suspension or whatever it may be, okay, or the, you know, the normally aspirated V12. And you'd probably be made happier by that purchase. So I don't think it's absolutely simple. I think Jay Leno and Jay Leno's, garage, makes him one of the world's great philanthropists, because he goes and spends a fortune on extremely rare cars and then shares his passion with an audience of millions. If you are a car enthusiast, you know, it's an extraordinary case, by the way, of translating money into something which is both a selfish pleasure and a generous pleasure. It's complicated, but when you read these books and you realize that status is effectively a kind

of thing within us for which we can't turn off. The currencies will change. The status currencies change with fashion and time and everything else. You know, there was a time where having a digital watch was the, you know, the highest status thing. In my school, if you were the first kid with an LED digital watch, people were in awe of you. So these things change. But nonetheless, it's probably innate. Would it be nice if we had the power to completely disregard the opinions of others?

Well, yes and no. I mean, I think such a society might be better in some respects. I also think it would be kind of atrocious because people would kind of go shopping naked. You know, is shame necessary? It's book by Jennifer Jackwood, actually. You know, I mean, as a social species, patently at some level, we're massively calibrated to care about the, you know, the repute of others. And that's why some things need to be expensive because then it's a costly signal.

It's peacock's tail. So the guy who rescued the British sparkling wine, industry effectively did so by improving quality by 10%, 20%, and then putting up price by about 150%. Because price is a signal. Because in the sparkling, in the champagne business, it doesn't matter how good the drink is if people think you've bought it for 895. It's not doing the job it's supposed to do, which is to signal generosity, to signal hospitality, or to mark your special occasion. You know, oh, I see you've taken out the good stuff because it's my birthday. And that's I mean, you're a Canadian, right?

potlatch was, I think, a practice by the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, was that right? Where they destroyed possession. You know more of a candidate in history than I do. I think it was tribes in the Northwest who practiced this potlatch thing where you destroyed things of value as kind of, you know, a signaling mechanism. That is like ultimate signal. It's like the rappers burning money on videos or something. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, yeah. Signaling things that they're probably not intending. a signal. There is a serious question here, which is can we take an innate and immutable human instinct and harness it for good rather than for ill? And Jeffrey Miller's example here is let's imagine two parallel tribes. Bluntly put, in one tribe, the men folk signal their desirability as mates by fighting each other with axes. That's a negative sum game. In the neighboring tribe, they signal their desirability of mates by going hunting and trying to bring home meat, which they then share with the rest of the tribe, that's a positive sum game. So there is this really

complicated question, which is undoubtedly human pursuit of status has both positive and negative externalities depending on the currency you choose to signal. And also, it's not totally, it's not totally easy to say whether it's negative or positive. I mean, it probably drives a lot of human behavior, which drives ambition, which drives progress, which drives... I mean, if we genuinely didn't care, okay, if we had no shame, you're absolutely right. I mean, no one, you know, I'm sure... By the way, I think also a lot of valuable goods are affordable now by everybody because they started as luxury goods. Yes. So I always mention this because it's such a silly boast. My grandparents were the fourth family in Wales

to own a dishwasher, and it cost about a hundred and something pounds. At a time when they're house, which was a very nice house, cost them four thousand pounds. That dishwasher probably works better than a modern one, too, by the way. It's still working. They bought it in 1959, 61, something like that. Why are they four-hour cycles now? And it's like, yeah, yeah, I'll be ready Tuesday week. Come on. Yeah. I have one of these, it's interesting, just as a funniest side, I have one of these dryers from the 80s in my house. It came with the hose. It drives the clothes. The repair man is like it's going to be just as expensive to fix this as it would be to buy a new one. I'll just assume. I was like, no, no, fix this one. And he's like, why? I was like, it tries the clothes in

30 minutes. I'm going to make an unusual foray into environmental responsibility here, folks, everyone is listening. Do, if there's a do, simple thing you can do, two things, put on your appliances at times when there is an abundance of clean electricity. You don't have to change what you do. You just have to change when you do it. Secondly, if you've got a dryer that doesn't have a heat pump, get a dryer with a heat pump. Because, yep, it's slow. I'm going to acknowledge that.

It's not as fast as an old-fashioned dryer. However, the energy efficiency of a dryer with a heat pump. Or better still, Americans, if you live in Arizona, dry your clothes outside. Because this is something that's slightly bemusing, because in Britain, we didn't have the social stigma of hanging clothes up to dry,

to the same extent. Now, we do now. Nobody would hang clothes up. clothes up. But that's just a social stigma. Now, in Britain, fairness, we've got a fairly climate. You're Canadian, okay? There are plenty of times of the year where your underpants can be hanging there for three months, so they wouldn't notice, they might freeze, but they wouldn't noticeably dry. But I do find it slightly weird in the US where if you're somewhere like Arizona, you could literally hang them up for, I was in Fuerteventura, an island in the

Canaries. And the amusing thing was you literally, they had a washing machine but no dryer. you put it up on the line about 40 minutes later it was ready to wear. So how would you market that to people? How would you change the behaviour? So that it's not necessary. Now, I understand that people don't want to put their underpants, you know, private things. I suspect that a lot of it is those weird housing associations already have rules that say you can't do it. And then bit by bit, the social norm spreads.

Those American housing associations are basically like living in a Nazi regime, isn't it? in the following sea. You know, it's like those co-op apartments in New York, which are, I mean, in London, we never tolerate that degree of kind of intrusion before we're allowed to move into a property. The interesting thing about the co-op apartments in particular, from what I understand, I don't understand everything, so maybe speaking a bit about something I don't know, is the degree to which all people play it. Yes.

Whether you're sort of like a student just graduating or your ability. billionaire, you're all sort of like playing this game in the co-op housing. No, no, it is completely a game. And apparently they can demand information which the IRS can't demand. I mean, it is absolutely bizarre. You have a co-op board which will, you know, in occasion, kick people out as well. But what probably happens is that once this is very similar, by the way, with the necessity of children playing outside, which is once the behavior drops below a certain threshold,

you have an inflection point. So my parents couldn't believe this. When I was 20-25 and I told them that when I was 11, I used to cycle 11 miles to the nearest town to see my grandmother on my own at the age of 11. And then when I told them, which they didn't know, I used to at the age of sort of 11, climb up onto the apex of the roof

and just wander around on the roof 30 feet up. My parents were aghast that they'd ever allowed it to happen. But if most people did that, at the time, it was normal. It was completely normal. Yeah. They'd be locked up today. My parents would have been locked up for, you know, several of the things which I was allowed to do when I was young.

Now, what happens, I think, is that you reach a threshold or a tipping point where in my childhood, let's say, someone had abducted me or I'd been hit by a car. Okay? And I'll give the exact year. You know, 1997, 74, 75, 76, that kind of era. If I'd been hit by a car cycling to Monmouth or I'd been abducted by a paedophile, my parents would have been described as unlucky. You get past a threshold where that behaviour becomes weird

and now my parents would be held as irresponsible and would be blamed. I don't think it occurred to them. I was, funnily, I've hit by a car. It was my fault, I'd be absolutely honest. I failed to signal before maneuvering. I was hit by a car. Nobody suggested it was my parents' fault

for allowing me to cycle around the place. That was just a normal thing you did. and then you get these weird, I've got a few theories. For example, what are the things that are products of social norms where you can suddenly hit a threshold? Tattoes among the middle class would have been an interesting thing in Britain. Is this true in Canada as well? So perfectly middle class people now have body art

and it's normalized. It would have been deeply weird in any middle class milieu to see someone with a tattoo in the 1970s. or 1960s. It's just normal. I mean, like everybody. No, no, no, no. I don't. But I mean, this, you've got to be 59 to notice this stuff. A lot of it happens over quite a long time frame. It's been a 13th. I've got a theory that all British men would wear shorts all the time if it weren't for social pressure. I also think, for example, okay, here's an interesting one. I don't know if you're

into perineal sunning. What is this? It's a Buddhist practice where you basically expose your perineum to direct sunlight. I think that a fairly large proportion of the population are naturists to an extent, by which I don't mean wandering around the streets with their schlongs out. But I mean that on a beach, in a field, in sunny weather, in some sort of privacy, they would like to wander around with no clothes on because it's good for you. It exposes your whole body to sunlight. You get a lot of vitamin D.

You know, it's generally healthful. And my argument about sunbathing is, well, you know, evolution made it pretty enjoyable. Maybe it's not all bad. And there are some schools of thought in dermatology, which may a case, that actually weirdly, although it enhances the risk of skin cancer, it improves cardiovascular health. So there was a study, actually, among Swedes, where there was a higher instance of skin cancer among Swedish sunbed addicts, but they actually had a higher life expectancy, which they didn't expect. So quite often, you see, what we do is we measure the narrow effect of a behavior,

but not the broader effect. But interesting in terms of how we might get things wrong. By the way, I wouldn't do it on a beach just there were children present. And then, you know, but if you go to, if you go to parts of Europe, particularly Germans will just wander around naked. Now, I think at some level, if they're no children, now in the United States, that would be perceived in a completely different way. At Capital One, we're more than just a credit card company. We're people just like you who believe in the power of yes. Yes to new opportunities. Yes to second chances. Yes to a fresh start. That's why we've helped over four million Canadians get access to a credit card because at Capital One, we say yes,

so you don't have to hear another no. What will you do with your yes? Get the yes you've been waiting for at Capital One.ca.ca.coms and conditions apply. So quite a lot of these things are They're just, in other words, you know, if doing something makes you weird, there is a point at which you reach a threshold, vegetarianism, veganism, et cetera, where it goes from being weird to mainstream. So what I'm saying is it's not an even process. Right. And sometimes you never get to the threshold. I see what you're saying. I know we're coming up to time here.

I want to get to a couple of questions. What are the rules of good copy if I asked you to teach me how to write good copy? How would you do that? I think a large part of it comes down to, you know, Michael Polanyi and his idea of a tacit skill, which is we know more than we can tell. There are some generally good rules, which is write conversationally, much more conversationally than people think they should write because everybody thinks they have to write a, and actually, I'll give you two examples of this. David Ogilvie, all his books are incredibly readable because I think he was a copyrighter first and an author second. His prose style is very good and he also adopts a clever trick

which I've stolen and which a few other people is that he writes extremely plainly for the most part but will throw in the odd sesquipodilian long word just to remind the reader that you know you're not an idiot

you know it's almost there to flatter the reader as much as it is to flatter the writer Conan Doyle I was talking to Rick Rubin about this he and I both grew up on those Sherlock Holmes short stories which are not only models of thinking and deduction and a fantastic lesson for mental gymnastics, I think.

They're also, Kings the Amos believe this, that is one of the greatest prose writers in the English language. Because bear in mind, a lot of that stuff's written in 1880. You read a lot of stuff that's written in 1880. Fuck, is that fucking, what's that mean? Oh, God, hold on. I'll have to go back to page 27 to work out who in earth Mr. Homer Angel is.

Or Miss Mary, Miss something sulland, isn't that, Marlon? no point in reading a Sherlock Holmes short story, have I ever had to go back a page to work out who somebody is? In terms of just absolutely brilliant clarity, those are astonishing. But in terms of persuasion, there are various things. So you use generally verbs of movement. You use verbs in preference to adjectives and adjectives in preference to add verbs, I think. You tend to use Anglo-Saxon words rather than the romance words for the most part, without being silly about it. You convert a feature into a benefit. There's also an element where sometimes

all you need to do is tell people a fact. Now, I don't know any evidence about this. I'd like to know it. And I ask this question, which is, of the people who are anti-vaxxers during COVID, was there a difference between the people who are basically happy with the idea of a vaccine and the people who weren't partly driven by whether you knew that vaccination dated back to the 18th century and smallpox. In other words, it was a 250-year-old medical practice or whether you thought it was some weird, newfangle thing that you couldn't possibly trust. I don't know. But sometimes, do you ever watch Presh Talwalker on YouTube? You know, those mathematical puzzles, geometry puzzles? I really recommend them because weirdly,

I find myself on YouTube watching people solve mathematical equations for fun, which I never thought I'd do. But Presh Tull Walker, and I can't remember what an... It's called. something like something decision or something. Anyway, it's a great little YouTube channel. It's not that little. He's got a huge following. And sometimes there's a geometry puzzle which looks completely impossible to solve

until you just draw one extra line at which point the solution becomes obvious. And so sometimes in marketing, all you've got to do is tell people a fact. It's not always about persuasion. It's not always about getting people. It's simply putting people in a state of knowledge or belief or conviction

that this thing can make a difference to their lives. And by the way, you're not, you're almost always up against a problem, which is that the two human default modes do what everybody else does and do what I've done before, for obvious reasons. You know, what you've done before and what everybody else always does is not necessarily optimal, but it's much less likely to be catastrophic

than trying something new that nobody else ever does. Yeah. So we're kind of herd species and we're kind of habitual species. So in the marketing of something which is genuinely new, you know, you're the Tesla, the electric car, there is a degree of extreme anxiety which you don't encounter when you repeat by or when you buy the brand leader. There's like a resistance. You have to overcome. Yeah, you have to overcome it because just as a camera has a default mode, the human default mode is do what I did before, do what everybody else does. I feel comfortable doing that.

very, very rational default mode. There's nothing silly about that in terms of, if you think about it, our evolutionary brain architecture, those two things make a lot of sense. But it does mean, and something I only realized about a year ago, 35 years after I've started working the business, is that as a consequence of that, big innovative new ideas don't require less marketing, they require more. Because you're asking people to, at the initial stages, you're asking someone to do something that nobody else has done. And you're you're asking them to do something they haven't done before, both of which create a kind of disquiet. And so providing people with conviction and reassurance, quite often, I suspect, by the way, in the early stages of a technology, that happens one to one. That, you know, it was my brother, who's an astrophysicist, so he knows all the bloody maths about kilowatt hours and stuff. So my brother provided me with a reassurance to buy my first electric car. Offent. I don't think if he hadn't bought an electric car, I've now had three.

Would I've bought an electric car? No. Probably not. Probably not. Yeah. It will be my brother who persuades me to get solar panels or a heat pump or something of that kind. But big ideas don't require, the classic geek idea is our idea is so good, it will sell itself. Since your fellow Canadian, Stuart Butterfield, isn't it, who founded Slack?

Yeah. Is that right? Yeah. He says the only real measure of innovation is behavioral change. that the only real measure of whether an innovation is significant is whether it, both in first order and second order ways, changes the way people behave. Now, an interesting question is, is AI at that point yet? And my second question is, the lesson of all tech is that loads and loads of geeks compete for technological numerical superiority by some measure

or other, and then someone else comes along with a cute user interface and makes all the money, which basically Steve Jobs. Nobody's done that yet for AI. Now, maybe this weird thing that Johnny Ive is concocting, which is some sort of weird pendant, which talks to your mobile phone, maybe that's what it is. There is this thing that sort of relates to that, which was Bill Gates had this saying. He's like the best, and, you know, I have friends living this now. The best technology doesn't win.

That's a very engineering point of view because you're judging technology by its engineering qualities rather than its human appeal. Oh, that's an interesting reframing. So there are people in every field. Like in the camera world, there are people called measure betas.

They're denigrated as measure betas because they're obsessed with the numerical qualities of the camera, you know, focal legs and all that stuff. And they don't take very good photographs. Yes. And saying that the best, I mean, undoubtedly, by the way, I mean, you know, Beta Max is the famous example

where they failed to capture network effects. And in a world where there are network effects, yeah, by the way, the best technology probably often doesn't win. I think that's probably fair. Everybody was competing to make a slightly faster IBM-compatible PC, but they were all grey and beige. Now, nobody in the tech world would go, the slight problem with this PC isn't the fact

that the clock speed or the processing power or the RAM is in. insufficient. The problem is, if I put this device in any room of my house, it turns that room into an office. If you put an IBM PC, a grey IBM PC, in any room in your house, including the, you might as well put a fucking photocopier and a bloody filing cabinet in the room, right? Whereas when Johnny Ive comes along and has that lickable, what was it, the IMAQ, the IMA, you can actually put that in any room of the house that it actually enhances. It's a fashion statement. It's fantastic. It's an, you know, it's an adornment. And so their failure to understand the wider context within which they were operating, which is the job of marketing, is exactly the reason nerds hate marketing because they think in a perfect world, nerd metrics win out.

But the consumer is much more bothered by the fact that when you get to the bottom of the iPhone scroll, it gives the little bounce. You could, if we're to be absolutely honest, you could ridicule, you know, Ives and jobs over the, you know, wives and jobs over the, you know, you could. their obsession with, you know, bezels and chanfers and things like that. But, of course, multiply that by a billion owners using the thing a hundred times a day. Okay, that's a hundred billion encounters. And that probably matters a lot more, in fact, than, you know,

by the way, I mean, I'd lost faith in Apple when they cancelled the car. Oh, interesting. Because I thought, you, they had the brand power to create for places like New York London, a form of microtransport, which was really, really cool, really, really efficient. The brand power you have, you see, you know, if you're Apple or Ford or whatever, people will buy a weird product from you much more readily than they will from Alpha Romeo. Right. Because they go, well, if Ford is doing it, you know, it must be okay. So one of the gifts of having a strong brand is your power to really disrupt and create new categories. New categories of transit, for example,

which we need, you know, don't go wrong, I'm going to fuck off 600 horsepower electric car. But when I go into London, I want a microilino or an edie-biddy little thing because that's appropriate to the task. And my argument is that they could have done something there. They could have used their power to do something. And, you know, the finance people killed it, really.

What was it called, project? Something you rather, I never remember. But no, no, they're just changing the shape of things and making the camera a bit better. Come on, guys, produced. By the way, John de Guanté. Okay. I tend to buy, and this relationship applied to electric cars as well, always a good reason to buy Korean stuff. Do you know why? Why? Because they're going to do that anyway. The Koreans are going to make fantastic tech of fantastic cars, regardless of the profit motive. Do you know why? To wind up the Japanese.

So they've got two motivations, okay? Other people are just trying to make money. I love it. Deep down, do you know why the largest Episcopalian church in the world is in Seoul? No. All right? This is really fascinating. I'm going to sell for the first time. I've never been. But the last four presidents of Korea have been variously like Catholic, Presbyterian.

Now, before the Japanese invasion, Christianity was a tiny niche missionary religion in Korea. When the Japanese invaded, the tiny Christian population refused to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor and some of them were martyred for refusing to effectively pay due respect to the divinity of the Japanese emperor. And therefore, it became the patriotic religion because it was seen as a deeply patriotic

entity. So I've got a hunch that you're, you know, deep down, you know, if you go by a Hyundai or a genesis or something like that, there's a dual motivation here. Let's make a bit of money. And that's purely, so similarly, if you want to look for anthropological reasons to buy, an awful lot of German businesses are driven by sibling rivalry. So Puma versus Adidas, Aldi North versus Aldi South. There's a whole weird family rift

in the German car industry which is too complicated for me to understand about Porsche and the family who own Pinshitridor. There are a whole load of families which are kind of weird warring families. And sometimes the family business has a motivation which actually...

The consumer is the winner. The consumer is exactly the winner. all this. But going back to that family business thing, that, you know, undoubtedly if you can harness other motivations alongside the profit motive, most people working for a company, unless you've bought them off with massive stock options because they're in the senior management, most people don't get up in the morning to enrich the share owners. No. You know, I don't get up, you know, I don't get up every morning. I don't know what a big shareholder is of my company. It's probably like the state of Wisconsin DMV pension fund. Well, for the best,

in the will. I don't wish them any ill will. Of course. But I don't get up in the morning because I go, oh, I really worry about those DMV people's pensions in Wisconsin. I can worry about customers. I can worry about colleagues. That's a natural human motivation to serve those people. We always end with the same

question, which is, what is success for you? Just expanding the adjacent possible. That's a very pretentious article, but push the pebble a bit further. That's it. I mean, you know, one of the reasons I do a lot of this stick stuff is because the feedback I got was every now and then someone comes up to me and says,

I made a different decision because of something you said. Someone said to me, I bought my house because of you. I thought they might be about to hit me. You still hear from people about our first podcast every two or three months. Somebody emails me and says, you know, because of that, oh, I love this. I never heard of this person. I went and looked him up. One thing I'm really clear on, and we've made this mistake, all creative people who made this mistake, which is to go, oh, no, that rationality is silly. What you need is creativity. No, no, what you need is two strings to your bow.

Okay, this is a complementary mode of problem solving. It works best in parallel with some rational or quantitative or data-driven measures, but the quantitative and data-driven measures should not be allowed to crowd it out. And so when I say, the reason someone bought a house because of me is, said, when you're looking for a house, don't optimise, because everybody will want that house. Instead, find something the house has which most people won't like, but you don't care about. Next to a pub. Now, I'm not saying next to a rough pub.

I don't want to have fights outside my house. But most people, particularly older people, would hate the idea of being next to a pub because they crap on about noise and the beer garden and all that stuff. I personally, the noise of a pub, a good, happy pub, is musing. to me. I don't go to sleep before midnight anyway, so it's not going to keep me awake. Railway line, personally, to me it's a bonus to most people it's negative. Go and look for those

things where you can arbitrage what's possible. That would be my attitude. Now, similarly, if you've got a problem to solve, don't purely define the problem in psychology-free terminology. Just as in America, you have a temperature and you have a feels-like

temperature, which is, by the very, very intelligent thing, because what makes us feel hot is not just the ambient temperature. It's a combination of temperature, humidity, breeze, and I think there's one other factor. When they do the fields-like temperature, there's something like temperature of so many feet above the ground that they factor in.

Now, when I'm going outside, I'm not going to do chemical experiments. I don't need to know what the ambient temperatures. I need to know, will I feel hot? And in the same way, I think there's something really important here, which is that do not define an object which is designed to serve human beings without considering psychological factors because you might be able to solve your problem

very, very cheaply and efficiently by changing the psychology, not by changing the technology. And provided people are looking at both with a reasonable amount of imagination, I'm not angry with a, well, I'm bit. I'm only angry with accountants and lawyers and economists, not because they do what they do, but because they have too much power doing.

And they've achieved a kind of monopoly over decision making, which I don't think they have a reasonable claim to. That's a brilliant place to end. It is not a bad place to actually. Yes. Thank you very much. We're not going to wait nine years before. Nine years before we get back together.

How often do you in London? Once or twice a year. Yeah. Oh, we must meet up then. That'd be fantastic. Definitely.