Category: Uncategorized

  • The Side Hustle King: “I’m making $8K/DAY from easy businesses”

    AI transcript
    All right. This guy might be the king of side hustles. He makes about $3 million a year off of
    six or seven different side hustles, different streams of income. And normally all the advice
    you hear is about focus, focus, go all in on one thing. This guy’s like Mr. Shiny object syndrome.
    So I loved having him on. He’s very fun. And he comes on, he tells you the side hustle ideas that
    he loves. So things that you could do, it’s kind of weird businesses, but you could do them really
    in any local market. And on this podcast, sometimes we have really brilliant people,
    but they talk about stuff that’s for most people, not something they could go do. It’s
    interesting to hear, but you can’t really do it. This is an episode I’m going to send to my sister,
    you know, my brother-in-law, because I think they would like to do these businesses. And I think
    these are things that anybody actually can do and get to where he’s gotten, where I think he’s making
    $8,000 per day of free cashflow off of these side hustles per day. That’s pretty crazy. So enjoy this
    episode. It’s all about the weird, crazy side hustles that anybody could do. If you just got a
    little bit of hustle. All right, what’s up? We got Chris here. Chris, you are a crazy guy.
    You’re a madman. And one of the reasons I wanted you on here is because most business advice on the
    internet sounds like this. You got to focus, you got to lock in, you got to grind, you have to just
    go all in on one thing, focus, focus, focus. And you’re like the exact opposite. You’re a dude who
    you see a shiny object, you chase it. And you’re not ashamed to say it. That’s actually your strategy.
    We were talking before this and you were telling me that you have, I think, started 30 different
    businesses that crossed over 50,000 in revenue, maybe 35. You said you have six different revenue
    streams right now that each produce over a hundred thousand dollars of cashflow for you. And I was doing
    the math on some of your numbers. And I think basically just on your side hustles, you’re
    making like $8,000 a day of cashflow. And I think that is amazing. I want to hear what your side
    hustles are. I want to hear what other side hustles you’ve found because you find these like random,
    simple businesses that are cool. I want to hear which ones you think are cool that other people
    can go do for their own side hustles. And I want to hear your philosophy as you go, because again,
    I think you defy some of the odds. That sounds perfect. Absolutely. Let’s do it.
    So tell me about some of the ideas you have that other people could do.
    Dude, I think you should pull up that video of the hole in one golf challenge.
    This is one that I can’t get out of my head.
    All right, so here we go. Look at this freaking thing right here. And I see a,
    basically a golf putting green. So like the, we’re just the part where the hole is and it’s just
    floating out in the ocean. And you said that this driving range in New Zealand pays out $10,000. If
    you hit a hole in one, it’s 111 yards away. You get this like plaque if you hit the hole in one.
    And so what is the business here? They basically, they, it’s like a carnival game. They charge you a
    little bit to try to hit a hole in one. Is that it? Yeah. It’s kind of like, think of like
    unbundling a carnival. It’s the business is math. They’re just using math. Right. And here’s the math.
    The, the average amateur golfer, and I don’t golf. I hate golf, um, has a one in 25,000 chance of
    getting a hole in one on a par three, which this is. Okay. And so this company in New Zealand,
    it’s right off the road on this Lake, um, they have announced multiple times that they pay out
    on average once every two weeks. So I can use math, uh, to say, all right, these guys, and I know how
    much they sell balls for it’s like 40 bucks for 25 balls or something. Uh, and they have a sensor in
    the hole and they have divers go get the balls every couple of weeks. Yeah. There’s like a scuba diver
    swimming around the thing. Is he there all the time or he just does that once a week goes and gets all the
    balls just once a week. And so I can surmise based on math and statistics that this place net profits
    like three to $500,000 a year, which is, there’s nothing to see there. It’s a little stand with a
    floating green. One guy just standing there with an iPad. So why isn’t this all over the place?
    Wait, so you said this is just roadside in New Zealand. There’s one, there’s one of these in the
    world that I know of off the side of a road in New Zealand, but it’s off the side of the road.
    it’s not even like near a golf course or tourist attraction. You’re just saying this is just in
    a random area right now. Yeah. All right. So let’s say we wanted to do this. Let’s brainstorm this
    together and maybe we’ll actually do this. Maybe we’ll find a listener to run this for us to make
    it happen. But like, we’ll make this an MFM case study. All right. So how would we do this in order
    to make this happen, um, you know, quickly, like get momentum and then have it actually work,
    have it actually be successful. So to me, it’s all about piggybacking, right? I don’t want to guess
    where the golfers are. Like there are no golfers where this place is, but how much better would
    they be doing if there was all already a captive audience right there? And so I would just find one
    golf course. You know how you go, you go to a golf course and like after the 18th hole, there’s just
    like a putting green where you can chill. It would be like that. Okay. Take your nearest pond, put a
    floating green out there, put a tee and have a little iPad with a stand and say, here’s your ball. Just like a
    driving range, 20 balls, 20 bucks or whatever, $10,000. If you get a hole in one and it’s a way
    for a golf course to earn additional revenue. They’re not about to build a floating green and work
    out the logistics of the point of sale. So you could, yeah, you could do this as a service and say,
    we’ll install this. You’re going to have more net income without doing any work. We’re going to take
    30% of all your revenue as a fee. Okay. I kind of love this idea, but you need the water for this
    floating thing. Right. Or what do you, what are you suggesting? So like, how would you do this if
    the golf course is not situated by like, you know, like in this case is like the ocean or whatever.
    I think, I’m glad you brought that up. Cause I think the water is a key point. Like as men,
    we want to throw rocks in the water. Yeah. I think visually there’s a, there’s a, there’s something
    that like my testosterone went up like 15 points, just looking at this. Like I could, I could do this.
    Right. Like if it was literally just like, uh, Oh, like here’s just like a hole. Here’s the 19th
    hole. Right. You could do that. You could brand it. Oh, this is the 19th hole. But just having that
    obstacle of mother nature there. Yes. There’s something to that. I mean, you win either way.
    So you get it on the green, you feel awesome. You get a hole in one, you win $10,000. You really
    feel awesome. You miss, you see a splash. You can’t lose. Or worst case scenario, you’re just playing
    golf. You’re paying, you’re paying money to play golf, which is why you’re there in the first place.
    And you’re going to get content out of this also. You’re going to have your buddy film you,
    or we set up a camera here where you get like an Instagram worthy story for, you know, for,
    for this thing. How much do you say people pay to take a swing at this? Or, you know,
    they buy 10 balls or what do they do? It’s like 30, it’s like 20 bucks or like 35 bucks for 20
    balls or 50 bucks for 40 balls, something like that. Oh, so you get like 20 to 40 hacks at it to do it.
    Yeah. That’s pretty good. And every guy thinks he can do it. Right. Of course. Or that today might
    be a day. And also golf, you’re already like, I don’t know what the average spend is of a golf day.
    Like if an, of a golf outing, I don’t play golf personally, but like there’s the, there’s the
    actual, like the cost to actually play that day on the course. There’s all the clubs investments
    you’ve done. There’s the cat, there’s the tips, there’s the food, there’s the, the beer along the
    way. There’s all this like money spent dude to spend an extra 40 bucks to have a blast with your
    buddies at the end or to have a story or to just like, you know, do something at the end.
    That’s an absolute no brainer. If you actually did this with the golf course,
    I thought you were going to say though, that you would do it just on the route to the golf course.
    You know, there’s a lot of golfer traffic. Who’s going to take a roadside stop here and try to do
    this. I mean, you could do that too. Like I’m picturing like a freeway with a lake over to the
    right and an exit nearby. You rent the billboard right above it, arrow pointing down $10,000 for a floating
    hole in one and people can just pull off and do it. Like it doesn’t have to be a golf course.
    I like, you could use the same principle. And to me, the principle is just math as a service,
    right? We’re calling this a mass business. Okay. And it’s like, let’s say you have a one in a hundred
    chance. It’s an outdoor casino. Yes, exactly. Exactly. What is a slot machine? What is roulette?
    What is craps? What are all these games? These are games where the house just said, cool,
    we’ll take an edge. We’ll take a math edge and you get to play and have fun. Right. Yeah. But we,
    we take the edge and that you, what you’re saying is to do the same thing. Yeah. Even like a putting
    green in a mall or something, or a walkable outdoor shopping area. Let’s say you’ve got like a one in
    500 chance of making a 30 foot putt. Right. So you say, Hey, 30 foot putt, you get it. We’ll give
    you 500 bucks. And you just do the math and you say, all right, I’m, you know, every $3,000 I get,
    I’m going to pay out 500 bucks. Statistically speaking, dude, I love this idea. If you,
    if you want to do this idea, email me Sean at Sean Puri. And then me and Chris, we will,
    we will help you do this and we will document the journey. We’ll put it out there in the public.
    We’ll kind of make it a thing because I think part of it is the branding and the novelty factor.
    And you want to see this online first, and then people will actually drive out to do it,
    or they’ll plan to stop. Not just whoever happens to see it and understand it while they’re driving
    50 miles an hour down a road. You know what I mean? Yeah. I like the name 19th hole. That’s a good
    one. It’s good, right? We might need to snag that domain name before this goes live.
    All right. This episode is brought to you by HubSpot. They’re doing a big conference. This is their big
    one. They do called inbound. They have a ton of great speakers that are coming to San Francisco,
    September 3rd to September 5th. And it’s got a pretty incredible lineup. They have comedians like
    Amy Poehler. They have Dario from Anthropik, Dwarkesh, Sean Evans from Hot Ones. And if you’re
    somebody who’s in marketing or sales or AI, and you just want to know what’s going on, what’s coming
    next, it’s a great event to go to. And hey, guess what? I’m going to be there. You can go to
    inbound.com slash register to get your ticket to Inbound 2025. Again, September 3rd through 5th
    in San Francisco. Hope to see you there.
    All right. So I love the hole-in-one golf course. All right. Give me the next side hustle idea.
    Okay. Well, I want to talk about Facebook Marketplace. I feel like there’s an entire
    economy in Facebook Marketplace. There are seven-figure business owners, let’s say fencing
    business. All they do is post to Facebook Marketplace organically once a week to get all their leads.
    By the way, Facebook Marketplace has 1 billion monthly active users. Just that tab.
    Crazy. And no one’s talking about it. What are we doing?
    So I’ve got a story for you. I’ve got a story.
    And by the way, just explain the thing you just said real quick before you go to your story. So
    you said there’s people who own like local fencing companies. Their entire sales machine is posting
    on Face Marketplace fencing services. Is that what you’re saying? Or answering the request for fencing
    service? What are they actually doing?
    Yeah. Like they’re just posting, hey, I put up fences, cedar six foot, $8 per linear foot. And
    then people message him and he goes out and gives a quote and he has a $7,000 job. Like there’s nothing
    paid. There’s no paid ads. This is just one organic post that takes him five minutes and he’ll refresh it
    every couple of days.
    Dude, I don’t know if you saw this. We did this episode with high schoolers. I think it was like
    a high school version of Shark Tank.
    I saw that. Yeah.
    And there was a kid who was, I think, 17, 18 years old and his entire business, I forget even
    what the service was. It was home services of some kind. I don’t remember.
    It was like window washing or something.
    Yeah. It was like window washing or like gutter cleaning.
    Gutter cleaning.
    Actually it was their highlight thing. It was like gutter cleaning. And his entire business
    model was off of Nextdoor. So he’s like, yeah, I just started this in my neighborhood where I live.
    I went on Nextdoor and I said that I do this and I serviced, you know, the last year I serviced 60
    homes in this neighborhood of 600 homes or whatever it was for gutter cleaning. And that
    generated, I’m making up the numbers now because I don’t remember off the top of my head, but it was
    like 500,000 in revenue. And we were like, what? And he’s like, yeah, I just post on there that this
    is what I do. And then it’s people in our neighborhood. And I was like, so could you post
    in the next neighborhood? He’s like, yeah, I’m trying to figure out how to get around the, you know,
    like, yeah, I can. I just haven’t done that yet. It’s like, wow, this is, everybody should do this.
    Like, you know, what is my kid doing? What are they teaching you in pre-K right now? We got to get
    after it with this Nextdoor, you know, Nextdoor lead gen, basically. And so you’re saying the same thing is
    happening at a bigger scale on Facebook Marketplace. Yeah. Both great opportunities.
    Okay, great. So tell me the story you’re going to tell me.
    Yeah, this is, this is an outlier example. Okay. Results not guaranteed. But 2021, China had
    canceled Bitcoin mining, right? 2021 was a crazy year, a lot of money being printed. And we started
    a Bitcoin mining facility and people were selling Bitcoin miners and hosting services on Facebook
    marketplace. And so these miners cost $10,000. So you go type in the name of the model and you see
    them listed. Cool. But I thought, huh, the hosting price, because if you buy a Bitcoin miner, you have
    to host it at like a data center. And it’s usually like 200 bucks a month for the hosting fee. So I just
    posted organically to Facebook marketplace, Bitcoin mining hosting service. But instead of putting in the
    price of the miner, which turns people off $10,000, $10,000, right? Yeah, I put in the price of the
    hosting $200. And then when you click into it in the description, it’s like, it’s actually 200 for
    hosting. Here’s the cost of the miners. I’m not exaggerating. That one ad, and I had it going on
    multiple accounts, we would refresh it, but no paid, no paid. Did $9.8 million all on Facebook marketplace
    in three months? Profitably. Like this isn’t like you’re, oh, and we spent $9.8 million in ads, like
    profitably. That’s like the potential and kind of an extreme outlier, but I have other more normal
    examples. Just to be clear, you were selling miners that you had, that you already owned or what were
    you doing? We were pre-selling them and then ordering them from China. So we had a positive cashflow
    conversion cycle in addition to all that. All right. So you went on Facebook ads, you specifically did the
    marketplace ads. Is that right? Not even ads. We were just posting. Just posting. All right. Just
    organic posting. And you’re posting every day. You’re posting it and you’re posting it in every
    city. Did you set up like a farm to post these? How’d you do that? Yeah. We used VAs and multiple
    Facebook accounts and we posted in multiple cities because most people want to buy from someone
    local. Um, and the funnel was, you know, VA answers, uh, response. Then they pushed them to a sales
    call because it’s hard to sell something so expensive over the internet. Once they got on the
    sales call, we would close like half of them. Right. So, and so, and then you would close them
    and then you’d go order that same thing from China because there’s like a knowledge arbitrage here of
    like, I don’t know how to go, or I don’t trust spending $10,000 on Alibaba or Aliexpress. And so
    you would then do that and you’d have a margin. What was the rough margin on something like that?
    Call it 30%. 30%. But like high ticket. So. And this one I’m guessing didn’t last in the sense that
    like, you know, in 2025, maybe the same market dynamics, the demand, the supply are not the
    same. Is that true? Yep. Really? The biggest variable here is like the frothiness of the mining
    market, which is not good right now. So I think this would work again if the mining market turned
    around more. When the time is like, like, would you do this? Like, are you planning to do this again?
    If the mining market, you know, gets, uh, gets hyped again?
    Yes. Yeah. And how do you spend your money, dude? So let’s say you make a few million dollars
    doing something like this. What do you, what does Chris like to spend his money on?
    Oh man. Um, on my family, we go on cool vacations and starting more businesses. Um, I invest in real
    estate, but I just, I like starting businesses is my, it’s the only thing I know, but it seems like
    you start businesses that don’t take a lot of capital. Yeah, that’s true. But I like investing,
    uh, like tripling down on businesses that are more mature along the way where I can see a clear path to
    growth with more capital. What’s another Facebook marketplace idea that somebody could do? Like,
    is it as simple as, Hey, I noticed that there are garage shelving companies. They’re not currently
    active in my area. I go talk to 10 business owners. I say, Hey, if I bring you a customer,
    give me $300 or whatever it is. And you do lead gen because that, that business owner doesn’t even
    think to do Facebook marketplace activity to, to drive leads. Most, most service people,
    most small business owners don’t even think this way. Right. Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, you can literally
    build an agency that just posts to Facebook marketplace for business owners, sells them the
    leads. Right. Right. But you mentioned shelving. I interviewed this guy named Alex on my podcast.
    the Kerner office. And he has a six figure business just building, not shelving, but garage shelving
    on wheels with Costco totes. Like that’s it. Uh, only with organic Facebook marketplace posts.
    And he net profits $180,000 a year. That’s the whole business. Right. Garage shelving on Facebook
    marketplace. I mean, he has a $300 saw and he goes and buys two by fours. And he didn’t even have a truck
    for like the first year and a half. Right. Okay. What are your other ideas? I see a list of 10 here
    and we’ve probably done two or three. So give me, give me more. All right. Any idea? No, no. Any
    idea. You want me to just call out one of these? Just tee me up. Yeah. Take local tourist traps and put
    them in your home market. Is this like the whole in one challenge or are you talking about something
    else? Different? Yeah. This is a good one. So I went, you’ve seen a rest development, I assume.
    Of course. Okay. So there’s money in the banana stand. We all know that. Um, I went to first day
    of business school in Harvard. That’s what they teach you. Yeah. So I went to Balboa Island with my family
    last year and we went to the banana stand for whatever reason, this one street, it has like seven banana
    stands. And there’s one that’s supposedly the best. And I shelled out like $8 each for these bananas
    covered in chocolate and nuts. And I made a video, uh, about, you know, how much profit these guys
    make, because as I went to the window, I had to, I asked her, how many of these do you sell the day?
    What’s your busiest day ever? What’s your slowest day ever? All these people are behind me. Do you
    want nuts or no nuts on the banana? People were waiting, but I had to know. And then to make matters
    worse, I pull out my phone and make a video about how anyone could copy them. So I’m a great guy,
    steal your banana. This one little shop that’s like 300 square feet is doing like 7 million a year
    in frozen bananas. Like, and what’s the margin on an $8 banana with chocolate and peanuts? And so I just
    thought like, why isn’t this like, why isn’t this a thing? I didn’t go to Balboa Island for the bananas.
    Once I was there, I got them, but there are Balboa islands all over the world. And most of them have
    no banana stand. Like, so it’s, this idea isn’t just about banana stand. It’s about taking something
    really unique and novel. Maybe it’s like the old Western timey photo booths that you see in Pigeon
    Forge. Maybe it’s like, um, funnel cake or like the mini donuts that you see in Gatlinburg, like take
    something like that and just test it. I’m not saying it’s going to work, but you could test it very,
    very cheaply in other tourist markets or in non-tourist markets.
    Yeah. That’s interesting. I wonder if that would work. Like, I wonder how much of the
    appeal is that, Oh, humans just like these kinds of frozen chocolate bananas. Or is it that in that
    area on that street, it’s kind of known for this and you see a line. And so you see the line and you
    start doing it. Like, I wonder if that, like, it’s kind of like an organ transplant. I wonder if there’s
    like that, you know, donor rejection or the host rejection of the, of the organ when you put one
    of these in a new, in a new area. It could be, but I think that the greatest chance you’ve had,
    you would have for success is taking specifically a tourist trap and putting it in a different tourist
    trap where it’s like, right. This is a unique novel thing that people don’t buy when they’re home.
    But like, for instance, um, I have a friend in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee that owns an indoor
    sledding facility. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t work in other tourist traps that have the same type of
    demographic there, you know? Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. Um, okay. Give me another one. How
    about, um, toasted tours? What is this? This is a, all right. This, this is a Northern California
    by you. This guy took a, a 40 foot shipping container, put it on the back of a semi truck,
    cut out the walls, put handrails on there, put tables in their chairs in there. And he takes people
    on wine tours. It’s a party bus, but it’s not even a bus. It’s a shipping container.
    That’s open air. Open air. Yeah. They like cut out the sides. Yes. And so I’m swiping Instagram one
    day and I see this video that just broke my frame. It’s the shipping container and people are like
    dancing inside as it’s going around a bend at a high rate of speed. And it’s like dangerous.
    What am I looking at? But this guy crushes it like his first year. And he had experience
    doing like wine tours, but nothing like this. I think he did like over a million bucks his first
    year with like 60% margins. What I like about some of these is that they are visually viral.
    So, you know, the definition of virality, people get it wrong. People think it’s word of mouth.
    Word of mouth is actually a different thing. Word of mouth is, I like this so much. I want to tell my
    friends about it. Viral is actually more like a sneeze. You spread a virus without even wanting
    to spread it. Right. This was like back when, uh, you know, Hotmail started. I’m just sending you an
    email. I’m not trying to tell you to use Hotmail, but because I’m sending you an email from my Hotmail
    address. And at the bottom, it says, I sent this via Hotmail. You know, they, they added that to the
    bottom of the email. It spread like a virus. And that’s how, you know, a lot of the big viral
    services actually spread. Facebook was like this, right? I’m, I’m uploading photos. I’m just tagging
    my friends. I’m not trying to tell them, Hey, you should join Facebook. I’m having a grand old time
    here. They tagged a friend. It sent them an email said you got tagged in a photo and people can’t resist
    being like somebody put a photo up of me on the internet. I must see this. And that’s how Facebook
    grew early on was like this, this one viral loop. And then there’s other types of virality. One is like
    this visually viral where it’s not like the people on this truck. We’re trying to go tell everyone
    about it, but it’s so novel looking that I can’t help, but look at it, learn about it. You know?
    And, and I think the whole in one challenge has the same benefit, which is like, you see it. It’s super
    interesting to look at. You get the concept right away. And it’s worth remarking on. You’re talking
    about it with people. You notice it, you want to do it. The act of somebody else doing it made you want
    to do it. And so I like these things that are sort of walking billboard style businesses because you
    know, they market themselves once you get them going. This episode is brought to you by HubSpot
    media. They have a cool new podcast that’s for AI called the next wave. It’s by Matt Wolf and Nathan
    lands. And they’re basically talking about all the new tools that are coming out, how the landscape is
    changing, what’s going on with AI tech. So if you want to be up to date on AI tech, it’s a cool podcast.
    You could check out, listen to the next wave, wherever you get your podcast.
    Dude, I have some really good, uh, good examples of visually viral stuff.
    Have you seen that guy that does like, he’ll mow people’s lawns for free?
    Please tell me you’ve seen that.
    Who’s this guy?
    Okay. This guy out of Kansas or something. Young guy. He owned a lawn care business,
    small kind of struggling business. And one day he sets up his tripod, SB mowing and SB pressure
    washing. He sets up a tripod. He’s got a big YouTube channel now, right?
    So this guy has 45 million followers across platforms combined. 45 million. And all he does
    is he sets up a tripod. He puts on a mic. He walks up to the door. He says, Hey, your lawn looks like
    crap. Mind if I mow it for free? What’s the catch? I publish this to YouTube and make money. Cool. And
    then he mows it for free with a time-lapse video visually viral.
    Transforms it.
    Yeah.
    Yes. We want to see the outcome. The retention is there. So the platforms push it. Like,
    what is it going to look like when he’s done? And this guy, I mean, what is the value of 45 million
    social media followers versus the value of a local lawn care business?
    Right. I mean, dude, look at this, by the way, like if you just sort by popular,
    you know, he stacks the thing. So there’s the visual viral part of, uh, before and after,
    which humans want to complete that. They want to know that the solution, then you have, um,
    the sort of novelty surprise factor. Like, Oh, this guy’s doing this for free. That’s interesting.
    Why? I want to know what’s the answer here. But then he stacks on drama. So the top videos are angry
    home homeowner confronts me while I’m mowing this vacant home. Cop approaches me while I’m mowing this
    deserted home and tells me this homeowner stunned at how wide the sidewalks are. Right. Her tears said
    it all. My prayers have been answered. So this guy has this great skill stack where he’s got,
    you know, the, the lawn care, this sort of, that’s one skill that, okay, is worth,
    you know, only X dollars in the market of, of the economy, but then he stacks on being really good
    at content. And those two together created a, how many lawn care guys are really good at content?
    I don’t know. Zero. Like, you know, the, the numbers less than a dozen. And so suddenly he became
    rare. And when you’re rare, you’re valuable. Exactly. Yeah. That’s really cool. Okay. So let’s jump in
    side hustles and the ones that you currently have. So let’s do some of the fun ones. The one I met you
    on is about Bucky’s. And so for people who don’t know, could you explain just how crazy of a business
    Bucky’s is? And then the side hustle you created off the back of Bucky’s. Yeah. Bucky’s is like your
    redneck Disney gas station. They’re about half the size of a Costco. There’s 51 locations and they do
    like 60 to 80 million in revenue per year each. And it’s just, if you haven’t been there,
    there’s nothing like, it’s like a religious. So the math on that is like 3 billion in revenue
    on 50 gas stations. Yeah. Yeah. What? I’ve never been to a Bucky’s. What, what makes a Bucky’s so
    great? Is it even a gas station or is it just something else that happens to have gas?
    It’s a brand with a gas station. They have over a hundred pumps. You walk in,
    there’s just things happening everywhere. You’ve got tacos being made. You’ve got people shouting
    about brisket. You’ve got beaver nuggets, t-shirts, like beavers walking around the cleanest bathrooms
    you’ll ever find. There’s nothing else like it. You just walk in and you’re, you’re amazed from the
    get go. Okay. Before you tell me your side hustle off the back of that, what’s the quick kind of origin
    story of this? Has this been around for like a hundred years? Who started it? Like, why is this so
    successful? I mean, I’ve never heard that $3 billion in revenue on 51 gas stations.
    They founded like 40 years ago. There’s a guy named Arch. He was called Bucky as a kid and he
    opened a gas station and then they just started going bigger and bigger and bigger. They just kept
    pushing the envelope and their whole signature was this mascot, just this cheesy looking beaver that
    people just loved. And so once they started selling merch, t-shirts and tumblers and all that,
    they just exploded. And they’re really unique in that they put themselves in far-flung areas.
    They’re not like in the city. They’re on the way to a vacation or close to a vacation destination.
    Oh, so it’s like the perfect rest stop, right? Because if anything, like I was just on a road
    trip, we drove to Tahoe and it’s a three, three hour drive roughly, but there’s these patches where
    you need to stop in the middle and the bar is so low for rest stop experience, right? It’s like,
    you know, it’s basically a porta potty in a, in a good scenario. And then you get like the trucker rest
    stops and you get a gas station. Then you get like maybe a little strip mall with the Starbucks. But
    what you’re saying is they built something actually like really cool out in that’s on those drives. And
    that maybe it’s like one of the golden insights for them.
    Yeah. It’s just that you walk in and you’re a captive audience. You can buy lunch, you can buy gas.
    Most people just park at the pump. You can buy a t-shirt and the average ticket. I don’t know what it is.
    They’re privately traded, but people spend hundreds of dollars there. You’re not just like buying a
    Celsius and hopping out.
    All right. What is this business you created on top of Buc-ee’s or like your side hustle for Buc-ee’s?
    Yeah. So back to what you said about me not being able to focus. I was in the middle of running this
    business that was growing and demanding all of our time and attention. And I took my business partner
    to Buc-ee’s and he was from Utah. It was his first time. And on the way home, I distinctly remember
    this. I remember the overpass. I was driving. I’m ashamed to say I pulled out my phone and I said,
    Kirk, these guys must kill it online. And I said, do you know what Disney does like X billion just
    through their online merch store? These guys must kill it. So I go to Buc-ee’s.com. I look for the
    shop button and it wasn’t there. They didn’t sell online. Anything, not food, snacks, shirts, anything.
    And I just like, I just sat there in silence. I felt like capitalism was being murdered.
    Like, what is, why? What good reason is there for this? And this was like six years ago.
    And so then we just started talking and we’re just like, what if, what if we launched a website for
    them? What if we went online for them? Because we were running a 3PL, third-party logistics business
    at the time, really hard business. And we thought we could launch this business for them as like a
    permissionless way to get their business end to end and get them as a customer. And maybe they’ll try to
    sue us, but worst case, it’ll be a great story. And so what’d you do?
    So the first thing I did was started cold emailing the founders, the executive team, everyone and
    saying, Hey, you need to be online. We can do it for you. We’ll build a Shopify store. We’ll do
    everything end to end. We have a warehouse, shelf space, et cetera. No response, just crickets.
    So at that point, it’s like, all right, let’s take this into our own hands. So most people give up
    there, right? Try to partner. Most people won’t even cold email, but if you do cold email,
    you give up when they don’t reply. Yep, exactly. So we bought beaversnacks.com because that’s their
    mascot was a beaver. And I went to Thumbtack and I hired a photographer for like $200. And I documented
    all this. I have pictures of all this. I took my four kids and wife to the nearest Bucky’s and my wife
    and I split up. I said, you get merch, I’ll get snacks. If it has a Bucky’s logo on it, buy it. Like,
    I don’t want the Doritos or the Coke because they white label a bunch of stuff, right? Like I only
    want something with a Bucky’s logo. So we spent like $3,000. We had a receipt this long. We took
    it back to the warehouse. Was the lady like, wow, what are you doing? They were, everyone was looking
    at us and I’m like an introvert. I hated it. I felt so weird. I’m like, don’t look at me. Just let me do
    my thing. So we bring it all back to the warehouse. We put it in this office, hire this photographer
    and she takes pictures of everything. We upload it in a CSV to Shopify. We launch a website,
    beaversnacks.com. And I say launch, like nobody knew it existed. So the first thing I did was start
    scraping and cold emailing every Texas reporter I could find. Eater, Southern Living, Texas Monthly,
    Fox News 38, you know, San Antonio district, you name it. And I just start saying like, here’s who I am.
    Here’s what I’m doing. Here’s who I am. Here’s what I’m doing.
    And so you weren’t afraid because most people would try to be laying low doing this because,
    hey, we don’t have an official partnership. You took the opposite approach. You’re like, hey,
    can I use this story to get some attention, whether it be good or bad? Is that right?
    Yeah. Cause I felt like, okay, worst case scenario, cease and desist. We have great story for a podcast
    one day. Best case scenario, we get them as a customer or this is a standalone business.
    Somewhere in between is going to be interesting, right? Maybe I have to fill my pantry with snacks,
    like $3,000 worth of snacks and my kids eat it for the next seven years.
    We had a guest come on and he said, you know, do what makes the best story. When in doubt,
    like when you’re at a fork in the road, do whichever, take whichever path will make the best story.
    You chose the path that will make the best story here. Okay. So yes. And I heard that episode and I
    thought that’s me. I agree with that. So I also did my research and it’s called first sale doctrine,
    which means anyone can sell, resell whatever they want. They just can’t pretend or imitate that brand,
    right? Like the, there’s a guy that imitated Trader Joe’s to do what I did, but he called himself
    Pirate Joe’s. The logo was similar. The store layout was similar and he got sued out of existence. So
    I thought, okay, as long as I say, I am not Bucky’s, I’m a third party reseller and I’m clear about that.
    They really don’t have grounds to sue me. So I started cold emailing people. They loved the story
    and I started getting on the phone with reporters. And any tips on that? So, you know, I’ve learned
    this with, with, with PR, which is that there’s PR is this very specific niche game. And once you
    understand how a journalist thinks you can reverse engineer what you need to actually do. So like,
    for example, our buddy Ramon did this recently, he went mega, mega viral because, and he knew this,
    he texted me, he called a shot. He’s like, as soon as the tariff dues came out and some people thought
    this is going to be horrible for businesses. Some people thought, well, why don’t those businesses
    just make it in America? We’ll buy it if it’s made in America. And so he launches an AB test on his
    website. So he, afina.com, it’s like a shower, a clean showerhead. So he was, he runs an AB test and he
    says, you can either buy, buy the one that’s sourced out of China, or you could buy the one
    that’s sourced out of America. And the American one costs a little bit more, uh, because it costs
    more to make it in America. But you know, here you go, you have a choice. And the results were
    something crazy, 25,000 visits or something like that. And there were literally zero checkouts on the
    American product. There was a few hundred on the, on the, on the Asian made product. And he goes to the
    journalist. He ran the test because he knew, look, either the results are going to show people will buy
    made in America or they won’t. In either case, I have a very strong story and he goes and he gets
    it written up. It’s been written up in like 40 major publications now. And he got tons of traffic
    to the site, tons of backlinks. His SEO went way up. It was a genius, quick acting move on the back of
    the tariff news. When most people were playing defense, like me in e-com, you’re like, oh shit,
    I just need to survive. He went and played offense. So I was, I’m curious, do you have any tips from
    your experience about how to get people to actually write about you?
    Yeah. I mean, you have to understand that reporters want something cool to write about.
    I get DMs all the time from people wanting something from me and 98% of them, they have nothing
    interesting to talk about. But if someone DM me and said, Hey, I did this cool thing. Will you post
    about it? I would. Cause I want to post about cool things. You know,
    my job is to post interesting things. Yes, please send it to me. Um, so once you realize that,
    like do something interesting, something cool, and then go tell as many people as you can about it.
    And a small percentage of them will post about it. Reporters included. How did you frame it at the
    time? I framed it as I am doing a viral marketing stunt and I want to get Bucky’s attention. And if I
    don’t, then I’m going to run this business as well as I can. Oh, so you told the reporters that up
    front. Yeah. Oh, okay. Gotcha. But by the way, give us the headline. Cause you know, we’re talking
    about this title. So we haven’t mentioned how well it’s done. Can you give us some numbers that give
    us an idea of like the success of this? I mean, I’ll tell you what the headline literally was.
    And it was like, Texas man makes 200 grand in his first 30 days reselling Bucky’s goods online.
    That was it. And so Texas monthly reached out to me. They’re the biggest Texas news publication.
    And they were like, we love this. We’re going to make this a feature story. Give me everything
    you can. So we talked, we talked, we talked, talked. And then later that afternoon, they’re
    like, Chris, good news. Bucky’s in-house counsel would love to chat. And I’m like, what’s good
    about that? Like I’m dead. I’m dead in the water. And so I was like, okay, you, you told Bucky’s
    great. I’m glad you were able to get ahold of them. So I get on the phone with him and he’s
    like, listen, we actually don’t mind what you’re doing. Uh, I don’t like the name Beaver
    snacks. We’re a beaver. It’s kind of confusing. I don’t like that your colors are yellow. We’re
    kind of yellow. Uh, change the name, put a disclaimer in your logo that is persist throughout
    the whole website, put a disclaimer on every product page and you have our blessing. Like
    we’re not going to sign anything, but we’re not going to come after you. Like we will support
    you. And so we did, we made those changes and then they linked to us.
    Cool ass general counsel. That’s pretty rare. Yeah. Yeah. And then they linked to us in their
    FAQs, which is like the most amazing backlink ever. So on one hand going viral meant we got
    a million competitors and like all these copycats. But on the other hand, we have like the biggest
    SEO moat that we could ever hope for.
    So wait, how did you skip to step? You said their headline was $200,000 in 30 days, but you
    didn’t say how you got the $200,000 in 30 days. How did you initially get that traction?
    It was all based on those viral articles. We didn’t do any paid ads. We just went viral.
    Uh, we put everything as in stock, uh, you know, on Shopify, you can do that whether it’s in stock
    or not. And we just started selling out. So the articles initially must not have been 200,000.
    The articles initially were just like Texas man starts shop to sell Bucky stuff online.
    Correct. Yeah. Yeah. They’ve written about us since then, but in the beginning it was Texas
    man, they called it Tex Pats instead of expats. They’re like Texas man launches online Bucky store
    for Tex Pats. Um, that was like the big headline. Uh, and that’s how it helped us go viral.
    Like a person from Texas who’s no longer in Texas, but misses their stacks, misses their Bucky’s.
    Yeah. And that, that was the whole thesis because these Bucky’s are in like Ennis, Texas, like these
    places that you’d never heard of because they’re on the way to the beach. And so if you fell in love
    with this random bohemian garlic jerky, you could never buy it again. Right. And so that’s where we
    came in, like buy it from us. And so how’s this business doing now? Was this a flash in the pan or
    is it still doing well? This business has grown 20 to 50% per year, every single year. Steady Eddie.
    We just, we are completely riding on the coattails of Bucky’s and we are not ashamed to admit that.
    So can you say how much revenue you guys are doing on this thing?
    We’re doing between three and 500,000 a month profitably with very, very little paid outspend.
    And the funny thing is here, you go buy it retail, right? You don’t have like a wholesale discount.
    They’re not, they’re not giving it to you at a cut. So you, you buy retail and then you just mark
    it up what 10, 20% or something. What do you, what do you do?
    We mark it up a hundred percent. Oh, okay. Cause you’re like, if you want it,
    if you want it that bad here, this is the, you know, this is your way to get it.
    Honestly, we mark it up as much as we have to. I mean, you know, e-commerce to make a 15,
    20% net margin. And that happens to be about a hundred percent markup.
    Right. That’s amazing. Okay. So that’s one of your side hustles. We said that there was,
    you know, like six that were each, uh, you know, six figures. I don’t know if we’ll get to all
    six, but give me another one. So what’s another of your side hustles right now that are contributing
    to your, your cashflow? So we started a pet cremation business. Uh, and that’s a fun one.
    That one’s actually very profitable. That’s a fun one for you, maybe. Okay. So explain how’d you get
    the idea and then what is it and how’d you do it? Okay. So it all started with a relationship that my
    business partner had with a very high volume veterinary clinic here in DFW. They do as much
    business as five veterinary clinics. And he learned about the industry and how pet cremation has like
    90 plus percent net margins. It’s a very old school business. And so there’s a, but you know, we’ve had
    this puppy boom during COVID. So all these puppies are five years old now. Uh, there’s more dogs than
    children. That’s, that’s like the whole thesis. There’s more dogs than children. It’s only getting
    crazier and cremation has 90% margins. Most of the operators are 60 plus years old. They’re doing great.
    They’re doing fine. They don’t need ads. They don’t need organic. And if you go look at the Google
    keyword tool, we saw that the search competition was low. The ticket size was high. Uh, and the,
    the, um, the search traffic was high. So we launched a business around that thesis.
    Sorry. So explain, you went to, you went to, uh, the Google ads keyword tool, right? That’s where you
    went to, to kind of diligence the, the, the demand for this. And you found obviously the holy grail,
    low, low competition, high ticket. And what was the third one? Growth or demand?
    Like volume, high volume, low competition, high ticket. Yeah. Holy grail. And so you start
    one of these and you’re, you’re actually the service that does it or you’re the lead gen?
    We are both. We have two different businesses. One is a programmatic SEO site that generates leads for
    cremation facilities all over the country. And then the other one is we’re just a middleman. We have
    refrigerated vans and we pick up the pets frozen from the facilities and deliver it from the
    veterinarians. And then we deliver it to the cremation facilities and take a margin.
    Okay. Gotcha. And so tell me a little about this business. I don’t, I know nothing about the pet
    cremation business. What did you do in the first 90 days to make this business come to life? Cause I
    like the speed with which you operate. We’re going to talk about another one in a second that I think
    is like a quick off the ground version of these ideas. And you very much are a zero to one
    kind of guy. Like, I like that you do a lot of different things. I like that you’re high energy
    and you’re basically like not lazy. There’s a lot of people out here who sell this kind of like
    side hustle, passive income. There’s nothing passive about you. I feel like you are Mr. Active actually,
    in the sense that you get after it. Once you have an idea, you know, I have this phrase, like, you
    know, inspiration is perishable. Ideas are avocados. They go brown very quickly. And I think what’s
    great about you is that you don’t let the ideas and the inspiration perish. You
    actually act on it very quickly and you have, you have a high, high bias reaction. So what are the
    first 90 years, 90 or so days look like when you have a new idea? And maybe you could use this one
    as an example, or if not, you could use a different one. Yeah. I focus most of my energy on validating
    the idea with like some ad spend or a couple of conversations or whatnot. I, I don’t do any like
    extensive market research. I don’t talk to any potential customers and I’m not saying there’s not value in
    that. That’s just not how I roll. I really, really like using tools like Facebook, like
    general publicly available tools that most people know and love. Stuff I can do from my boxers at home.
    That’s what I like. Right. Yes. And a lot of times by the end of the day, I realized, oh, this is a dud.
    Let’s move on. But also a lot of the times by the end of the day, I’m like, oh, wow, there’s something
    here. My thesis was true. Let’s, let’s put another day into this. So, so like what, what would you do in
    this pet cremation business? What did you do? So the thesis here started with this relationship that my
    business partner had. Uh, and the pitch was let’s get the, the cremation facility owner and the veterinary
    clinic owner in the same room together and pitch them this like win, win. Hey, we’re going to get you more
    veterinary clinics because we’re really good at sales. Okay. And then to the vet, Hey, uh, you need to raise your
    prices. You’re way too low. Uh, you’re going to make even more margin working through a middleman,
    believe it or not, because we’re going to be, we’re going to only do one thing. We’re going to pick up
    pets and we’re going to drop them off. And so there was a big conflict of interest interest here because
    the cremation facility owner was about to lose some margin, but he was like, we were selling him on the
    fact that we would bring him a lot more customers. And so basically this was a good like example of what I
    normally do. If that conversation doesn’t go well, I don’t launch the business. I just move on.
    And you weren’t afraid that when you put those two in the same room, they’re like, great. Yeah,
    we should do this. Who’s this guy. What is it? Why do we need this guy? Did you see any risk in
    putting yourself there as the middleman with this and actually connecting the two dots, the really high
    volume vet clinic with the information service that you thought they should be using? Well, the thing is,
    is that they were already working together. Right. And so what you’re saying was correct. That was the
    risk. We insert ourselves. You’re saying there was some friction. There was some friction that you were
    offering to remove. Is that right? Yeah. And the friction in this case was what? It was that the
    veterinary or the cremation facility owner made all his margin on the actually doing the cremation and he
    was losing money on all the logistics. Okay. But this customer we were talking to was one of his biggest
    customers. And so we were saying, hey, you’re going to lose some margin on this biggest customer because
    we’re inserting ourselves. We’re going to take some of it, but we’re going to more than compensate for it
    by A, removing that logistics off your plate and B, finding you more veterinary clinics.
    And then for the vet clinic, you were saying, hey, raise your price a little bit. And we need to be
    able to do that for, to make this work. Yep. And so our thesis was, if that conversation doesn’t go well,
    the business never launches. Right. It’s an asymmetric bet. But if it does, then we have,
    you know, the hardest part, we have customers and revenue through the door from day one, if they’re,
    if they agree to this. Exactly. Yeah. And then you went and tried to recreate that with, you know,
    getting 15 other veterinary clinics. Now, most of them, I assume would already have had a partner or
    some vendors for cremation services. And so what’s your sales pitch to them? How did you go and get more
    customers on board? Yeah. Our sales pitch was like, our competitors were very unsophisticated. Like they
    would literally walk through the front door of a veterinary clinic, get the frozen dogs, put them in a bag,
    and then walk out the waiting room. And so our pitch was like, that’s our competition.
    We will never do that. We’ll pull out back, unmarked van, we’ll be very caring and respectful.
    In some cases, they don’t even have to pay anymore. And we’ll just be, we’ll just pick up the phone and
    be reliable. That was the pitch. And is there something to learn here about like,
    you know, there’s so many of these simple businesses where the bar is really low or people
    are simply not doing any outreach. They’re not doing any door-to-door sales. Like, have you made
    a killing and just, you know, Warren Buffett has said this before. He goes, the secret to winning
    is low competition, is weak competition, right? Like he’s not looking to prove that he’s a genius at the
    hardest games. He’s looking for very weak competition where he can simply be competent and
    he could just do best practices. Oh dude, like it is so true. We see it on Twitter all the time. Like
    just go, go find a business with the fax machine to compete against him. Like, yes, that actually
    works. I, we own a tree trimming business and a big bottleneck for us is stump grinding. So we thought,
    I thought, man, there needs to be a business that’s just stump grinding, but B2B. Not stump grinding
    that goes through homeowners, but only the ones that goes through, uh, the other tree trimming
    companies. Cause we own a tree trimming company and we could see it from the inside. So I had a thesis.
    I hired a virtual assistant and today I would just use an AI voice agent. And I took the city of Houston
    and I scraped every single tree trimming business in Houston. There was about a thousand. And I had this
    virtual assistant call every single one and notate, did they answer? Did the number work? If they did answer,
    say, do you use grind stumps? If yes, then would you ever outsource that? If yes, then how much would
    you pay? So I spent like $200 getting this research. I, I, I’m not familiar with the tree trimming
    business. Surprise, surprise. So why does a tree trimming business not also do the stumps? Why is
    that a separate problem that they don’t like to deal with? Yeah. Great question. So a tree trimming
    business needs sometimes a bucket truck to get up high and a chainsaw, right? But that’s only half the
    battle. Then you got to get the stump out of the ground or else, you know, you can’t grow
    grass there. And so it’s a, a stump grinder. You’ve got to pull on a trailer. Whereas before
    you don’t even need a trailer. It’s just a whole different system and they got to go rent
    it. They stand in line. They pay $300. They rent it. They put gas in it. They drive it back
    to the job site. They grind it. Then they got to bring it back. And it’s like, it eats into
    their profit. And so I thought, okay, if a tree trimming company could just outsource
    all of their stump grinding B2B only, is there an opportunity there?
    So the assistant goes, she calls everybody. She asked them, would they be willing to outsource
    that? And are people just saying, yeah, yeah, we, we’d be willing to outsource that. Is that
    like a, can you get that clear of a signal just off of a VA’s phone call?
    So only 22% of people answered the phone. Um, that’s it. And of the ones that did almost half
    of them said, if I could outsource this, I would gladly. And then we, then we even got further down
    the script and said, would you pay seven, uh, $7 per inch or whatever of diameter? Yes. And then
    I published all that info on my podcast and people went out and started some grinding businesses with
    the exact thesis. And we learned, yeah, pick an industry where people seem to be doing well and
    call all of them, see how many answer their phone. You can cross-reference that against like the Google
    keyword tool and, you know, publicly available stuff and see how much demand for supply is there in any
    given market. Hey, this episode is brought to you by Mercury. They’re the fintech of choice for over
    200,000 companies. I myself use it for eight different companies. The reason why we all choose it is
    because it has everything you need under one roof. So like my e-commerce company, it’s super important
    for us to be able to easily wire transfer, pay all our different vendors and suppliers all around the
    world. And the old way with our, you know, more traditional bank, uh, that shall now be named. I try it
    online. It would say, no, it would freeze my account. Then I’d have to go in, book an appointment,
    speak to a specialist who would try to upsell me on something I didn’t need. And then finally,
    after, you know, 30 minutes there, then they charged me 50 bucks for the pleasure of that terrible
    interaction. And now with Mercury, I just go online, push two buttons and I’m done. It’s such a seamless
    experience. It’s very intuitive. Everything’s under one place. They basically took all the things any
    company would need for their financial tech, and they made it super easy to use and put it into one
    platform. So highly, highly recommend it. If you’re not using Mercury,
    I question your judgment. So that’s it. You’ve heard on my first million. For more information,
    check out mercury.com. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Check show notes
    for details. Okay. I like that. You did one recently. You had this, um, Instagram video. I’m going to
    actually play it here, but I love this video for a couple of reasons. Uh, one, just the idea is fun,
    but the, but two, like, you know, your energy and what you’re describing here is, is pretty great. So,
    uh, here, I’ll love this. This is you talking about starting a pickleball facility.
    This frigging thing right here. I’m right here in my warehouse slash shop. It is 2,100 square feet and
    I’m putting a business here. It’s called secret pickleball and it’s going to be 99 bucks a month.
    I’m going to cap it at 200 members, $20,000 a month. There are 7,700 people within 10 minutes of here that
    play pickleball every week. And I just need 200 of them to make this a six figure business. No employees,
    24, seven key card access right there. Cameras, bathroom, vending machines already in the next 60
    days. We’re adding drywall. We’re painting lines, adding the bathroom back there. If you want to
    watch me fail or you want to watch me win follow and I’ll document the whole journey or get the
    business plan. Basically you’re standing in this warehouse and it’s, and you’re like, look at this
    freaking thing right here, which is how you start all of your videos, which I think is a hilarious
    little hook. So can you, uh, add some color to this? So where’s the, what’s the origin of this idea?
    How’s this going? Tell me, tell me more about this idea. Yeah. So that shop that I’m in, in the video
    is in my back backyard. Basically it’s at the back of my property. Historically, I’ve rented it out to
    landscaping businesses for like 20, you live on like a ranch or something. What is this? It’s three acres
    and it’s very like, yeah, it’s at the back of my, of my property. And so I was just thinking like,
    what is the best and highest use of this property? And have you ever been to a secret pizza in,
    I think it’s the Cosmo in Vegas. Yeah. Yeah. I love that place. Yeah. That place does like
    9 million a year in pizza and they don’t have a Google profile. They don’t have no website.
    Yeah. If people haven’t been there, it’s like five feet wide. It’s like a tidy hallway. Like
    in high school, if your locker was like on the side, it’s basically that. And they just sell slices of
    pizza at the Cosmo hotel in Vegas. Yes. So I was going for that. Like I call it secret pickleball
    and I just thought, okay, I’m going to run some Facebook ads. I’m going to go to my shop. I’m
    going to take three videos. I’m going to ABC test them on Facebook ads, instant form,
    six mile radius. Sorry. Was your ad a video like this where you’re saying I’m going to build this
    here or was it like a mock-up? That was one of the three. Yeah. The one you showed was one of my three
    ads. Yeah. And what were the other two? Were they like finished product, like a rendering or what did
    you do with the other two? One of them had like an AI, really bad AI image rendering, like overlay for a
    split second, but that’s it. I’m just standing in this empty warehouse. And when you say I ran some
    Facebook ads, give people a sense of how you do that. Right. Everyone again, I know who does this.
    They have a, you know, a certain budget, like, Hey, I’m going to run five, I’m going to spend $500
    and I’m looking for maybe this cost per click, or I’m looking for this much net conversion of people
    signing up to my wait list or, or they even have a fake checkout. And then they refund people
    afterwards saying like, Hey, sorry, this doesn’t actually exist yet. Or, you know, I’m still,
    we got delayed, but it’ll be out soon. I refunded you for now, but you know, it’s coming. And they’re
    looking for that funnel, the metrics to sort of validate that, Hey, cool. If this works at $500,
    I think I’d be able to spend maybe a thousand or $5,000 in order to get my 200 members or, you know,
    $50,000 to get my 200 members, whatever it is. Can you explain your method for Facebook ad testing
    this? Yeah, for sure. So I used one campaign and then three ad sets and three ads, one video for
    each ad set. And I started it at $25 a day per video. So $75 a day total. My ad was a Facebook
    instant form asking for name, phone, email. Then after the instant form, it, it forwarded them to a type
    platform with 19 questions that are very granular. What is your skill level at pickleball? How often
    do you play? How much do you do doubles or singles? Cause all of this is going to determine how many
    members I can take on. And the whole, the whole thesis is to be one pickleball court indoors, nice
    private air conditioning, uh, that people pay one to $200 a month for. So I don’t want the pros that
    play twice a day. I like, it’s a very finite resource. I want people that hardly ever play like the
    planet fitness model, except expensive. I want, I just want to have my cake and eat it too.
    Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I knew 5% of Americans play pickleball weekly. And I knew within six miles
    of me, there’s 200,000 people. So I needed like, there’s like five to 7,000 people in my TAM, my local
    TAM. Right. And I was hoping that I could convert someone for a hundred dollars because my guess is
    that the LTV, the lifetime value is going to be about a thousand dollars. But I think it’s actually a lot
    more because no one plays pickleball alone. So I get one customer, they’re going to bring two to three
    or four. Right. What I learned was I’m converting, like, I don’t, the LTV is still to be determined,
    but I’m able to convert new customers at $12 each.
    And so how many members does this secret, does this exist now? Like this, I don’t know when you
    posted this.
    I’m building it out. I’m, I’m literally putting a septic tank in the building right now. Like it’s
    being built out, but I’m accepting three orders.
    How much is it going to cost you to do this? All right. So you already had the structure there.
    How much are you going to put into making a pickleball court to bring this idea to life?
    On the low end, 20,000. Realistically, 30 to 40.
    That’s it. Wow. I would have guessed it’s more.
    Yeah. Well, it has air conditioning. I need to expand the building because I need room for a
    bathroom and then I need to add a bathroom. So if I didn’t need a bathroom, it would be much less.
    And then I need to paint lines.
    So anybody could just Google maps, pickleball court in your area, right? Like wherever you live,
    you could Google maps, pickleball. You could just take a map and you could be like,
    where is there not space? And then you could go drive them and just see, oh, wow, that one’s kind
    of shitty or it’s outdoors. Right. Or this one over here, it’s always overrun. It’s always packed.
    And you could literally just map out that, oh, wow. I just need to take an industrial space and
    convert it to a private pickleball gym, a membership, right? One court, two court, three
    court, whatever. And so the math you’re saying here, are you charging a hundred bucks or what’d
    you end up charging? I’m going to end up charging 149. All right. So you’re, so you’re charging 149.
    Are you still targeting 200 members or did you find out that that assumption was too high or too low?
    It’s, it’s, I can accept around 150 members if I accept the right members.
    All right. And so you’re talking about 22,000 a month of top line revenue from this. And you’re
    saying it might cost you in this case, 20 grand, 30 grand to build. I think somebody else, let’s just
    assume it’s even $75,000. Let’s triple the price to build out because maybe their space needs it or
    you’re just being conservative. So you got 22,000 coming in top line. Is there any OPEX here? Do you need
    a person there? Is it like, do you have a key membership thing like that? What is your monthly
    cost in terms of like, you know, roughly you think utilities, everything else?
    Yeah. Uh, key card entry 24 seven online booking system through a third party app cameras, no employees
    cleaner that comes there. And I’m going to use the cleaner I use for my house. She’ll go there like
    two to four times a week, depending on how dirty it gets insurance, utilities, internet. It’s like,
    we’re talking, including cleaning 1500 a month, 2000 a month. All right. So you’re talking about
    like, you know, 90% profit margins on this, but let’s be conservative. Let’s even say 80%.
    That would be roughly generating about 17 to 18,000 a month in cashflow off of pickleball off of one
    pickleball court. Yeah. That’s pretty crazy to me. Yeah. And it’s actually pretty unique. I use deep
    research to, to see if other, any other private indoor courts that only have one to two courts,
    because there’s a lot of franchises that have 15 courts. And a lot of the haters on Twitter were
    saying that like, no one, no one would pay for this because people, they want multiple courts.
    They want other people to see them play pickleball. I’m like, dude, nobody wants to be seen playing
    pickleball. Well, no, but maybe they just don’t want to wait. Right. You know, they want, right.
    They’re not able to get courts. Um, and so there, there are very few of these and, um, anyone,
    this is something anyone could do like with some Facebook ads. You don’t need to buy a building or
    have a building. You could go rent a building and run some Facebook ads before you even sign a lease.
    Like what are we talking about? What are we doing here? All right. Now let’s be realistic. Uh, cause
    you know, there’s a lot of people on the internet who will say it’s so good. So easy. Look at this.
    The math is the math is math. And where does a business like this actually suck? You’ve done
    enough businesses now to know that there is no such thing as these like perfect businesses. So in this
    one, realistically, why would this fail? What might you be getting wrong here? Or maybe at least like,
    why would the numbers not be as rosy as they sound right now? Yeah. It’s going to be like, uh, customer
    support inquiries like that are a lot higher than I thought things breaking the AC going out in July in
    Texas, um, zoning issues. Uh, it’s not the type of business where you’re going to have a hard time
    finding customers, but pick your problems. There will always be problems. I think it’s going to be
    customer support. Um, and you know, getting calls at three in the morning from someone that’s playing
    this random game in the middle of the night and the AC went out. What sort of problems do you like to
    pick? I would love to not have to worry about customer acquisition and operations. Like I am terrible at
    operations. I would much rather try to sell or market something than operate it. So if it’s marketing
    heavy and I don’t have an issue finding customers, that’s my business.
    And then the operations either being simple or you all floated it to somebody else.
    Yeah, exactly.
    Give me some of your beliefs here. So what, what, like you do all these random things and you have all these random
    ideas, actions come from thoughts, thoughts come from beliefs. And so what are the beliefs that are leading you to do
    all these random actions, like starting this pickleball secret pickleball court or going in and, you know,
    being like, Bucky should sell online. I’ll do it for them. And now I’m going to do this as a publicity stunt.
    Maybe they’ll partner with me. Maybe this work. I don’t know. Maybe it’ll just be a good story and I’ll get sued out of
    existence. Like what are some of the beliefs that you have? We talked about one at the front, which is like
    focus is overrated. Talk about that one and then give me some of your other ones.
    Yeah. I think focus is overrated because compounding doesn’t care. Like the principle of compounding does
    not care if we’re working on one thing or a dozen things. As long as we stay in the game, whatever
    that game is for us and keep going, compounding is just going to keep going with us. Right? So if you’re
    curious about something, like, let’s say you’re, you’ve got a side hustle and it’s going well. And you’re
    like, what about this side hustle? Test it. Like answer that question. Now, if you have a side hustle and
    it’s like, you’re not sleeping because you’re just cashing all these checks and customers are beating
    down your door, you’re not going to be thinking about, Oh, what about this shiny object? Like
    you’ve got product market fit. That’s a signal, right? So just chase the signals, chase the curiosities
    because you’re going to learn something over here that you’re able to apply over here that no one else
    has ever thought of because they weren’t doing these seven other things like you were. So net of net,
    I like, if I gun to my head, I think you will be more wealthy if you do one thing,
    but you’re more likely to be miserable and not have an enjoyable life.
    Yeah. So focus actually does work, but it’s not the only way. And it’s a lot of fun to not focus.
    It’s actually what I mean. You have a similar thing. I’m going to read you this. I want you to
    give a little take on it. You said, say yes to everything, take on way too much, increase your
    capacity for stress and let Parkinson’s law do its job. Most people have no clue what they’re capable of
    because they don’t take on too much and they never stress test their life. And you had something called
    the restaurant hostess analogy. Can you explain that a little bit?
    Yeah. Let’s say you’re a hostess at a Michelin star restaurant in New York, Manhattan. You’re slammed 24
    seven. People come in and out, people yelling, whatever. And then you’ve got a hostess in Des Moines,
    Iowa in a diner, and they’re usually pretty slow. And then, you know, soccer team pulls up and like,
    oh, I table for 15. And she’s like, oh my gosh, table for 15. Oh geez, what do I do?
    Like to the woman in New York, like that’s nothing. That’s nothing because that’s her norm. That’s her,
    her new baseline. Right? So most people that I talk to are like, oh, I could never run a Facebook ad
    campaign because I have to clip my toenails that afternoon. Like what? Like they don’t, like they’re
    not doing enough. They, they think that like the barometer is down here and they think people like
    Elon Musk are just, he’s an alien. That’s not even realistic. And it’s like, no, he just like took on
    way too much. And, and now he’s able to do way more than ever before because the less important things
    just kind of fall off the plate. That’s Parkinson’s law. You bite off way more than you can chew.
    And if you forget about it, then that’s a signal that it was worth forgetting about.
    Yeah. I think that if you ask people, honestly, you said, what percent of your potential are you
    tapping into? I think that’s a pretty scary question for most people. Um, because the answer is not going
    to be what you would want it to be. Very few people I know, right? Like you almost have to be very low
    self-awareness to be like a hundred percent, right? Like the answer is not a hundred percent.
    Right. I think David Goggins has said this about when he trains and he says like, you know,
    the moment where your brain is ready to quit when it’s over, your body still has 30% left.
    Like the brain quits before the body and the brain will stop you as a safety mechanism
    when you still have 30% left to give. And I don’t know if the number is right, but I think
    directionally he’s correct when it comes to like what you’re physically capable of. And then in terms of
    what you’re creatively or ambitiously capable of, I think it’s kind of the same thing. I think it’s
    probably even a worse ratio than that. I think most people are tapping into less than 30% of what
    they’re capable of doing. And it doesn’t mean you necessarily need to work a hundred hours. I think
    it’s just like your capacity to output and to be creative and to go for it and go for it with full
    force on the things that you’re trying to go for. Um, and maybe it’s, maybe it is take on an extra
    project or maybe it is, but sometimes it’s just go faster. Sometimes it’s just think bigger. And the,
    you know, these all sound cliche, but they’re, you know, they are, they are cliche for a reason.
    They’ve been around for thousands of years because I think humans tend to have this problem where,
    you know, we don’t actually tap into, you know, how fast we can go, how big we can go,
    you know, what, what truly going for it looks like without, you know, the fears, doubts,
    and hesitations that people have. And so I agree with you. You know, are you,
    are you a family guy as well? Like, I guess like you’re doing a bunch of these businesses. Is that
    cause you’re, you know, the counter argument is, well, yeah, you’re 21 years old and you don’t have
    kids and a mortgage. You know, that would be a way that somebody would maybe try to discredit the amount
    of output that you have. Yeah. I mean, I’ve, I’ve got four kids. I had all four kids between the
    ages of 23 and 29. And I was building all of these businesses throughout that time. I never missed
    dinner. I travel very rarely. I never missed a sporting event and I’m in my office, you know,
    from seven to four, give or take working. Sometimes I pop out to hang out with the kids,
    but I think it’s important that my kids see me work. Uh, but it’s also obviously important that
    I spend time with them. So we go on a lot of vacations, four to six a year. We’ve seen all 50
    States. We go all over the world. Uh, you can do both period. Right. I think it’s important for my
    kids to see me work. Unfortunately, my work just looks like me talking and laughing with friends.
    And so I don’t think they get it. I don’t think that’s acting. Um, what about, um, what about,
    you know, you said you’re building your family and you work, let’s say the seven to four,
    what are you doing during that seven to four to make those hours count for more than maybe the average
    person is doing? So like how, what do you do to have more productivity or more effect in those same
    number of hours? Like how do you structure your day? What are some things that you you’ve noticed you do
    maybe better or differently than the average, the average entrepreneurial bear?
    Yeah. Um, the perfect day for me is nothing on my calendar. Um, I definitely time batch. Like
    if I have seven calls that week, I’ll try to put them all in the same afternoon. Um, I think a lot
    of people kind of feel insecure about having an open calendar because it’s like, it’s kind of like
    a comfort blanket. Like, okay, now I know I’ll be productive today. Right. But when you have
    so many ideas, like so many ad campaigns, I want to run or newsletters, I want to write,
    like, I don’t have time filling, I don’t have problem filling my time. And so I, I don’t use
    any fancy CRM notion or anything. If a tab is open in my browser, it’s a to do list. When I close it,
    it’s done. My notes app, a lot of caffeine, uh, admittedly. And I don’t worry about context switching.
    I used to really stress like, all right, let’s, we could do this for 30 minutes, do this. Don’t
    context switch. Like, I feel like with anything in life, we can evolve to it. We can become a lot
    more acclimated to it. And so I’m always context switching always. And I feel, I feel like I’m good
    at it because I’ve done it so much. Another one of your beliefs, you said the longer I’m in business,
    the more I realize this to be true. If you want to be a billionaire, you got to innovate and focus,
    but to be a millionaire, you simply need to copy paste. Don’t even try to copy something
    that works and put your own twist on it. No twists, stop twisting, just copy what’s working. And
    organically over time, you’ll discover the tweaks on your own, but you don’t have to lead with all
    the twists or you’ll just screw it up. Yeah. I think there should be like, there needs to be a school
    or something on reverse engineering. Like it is an underrated skill. I’m in like the meta ads library
    and the web archive all the time. Let’s say there was this taco restaurant that just in my town,
    that had a line around the corner 24 seven and they, all they sold, uh, were steak tacos.
    That’s it. And you said, all right, they’ve got more demand than supply. All right. This town could
    use another taco shop. All right. I’m going to copy them. I’m going to do it even better. People want
    more variety. They want steak and chicken and there’s no drinks. You can’t even get drinks there. Yeah.
    I’m going to do this. I’m gonna do that. Every change you make is another variable to like,
    to screwing it up. Risk. Risk you value. Yeah. Like you, you’re gonna, you’re, let’s say you copy
    them verbatim and you open, you’re going to learn really quickly. Oh, oh, they’re probably using that
    as their point of sale and not that. Oh, this is why, because the onions, they have to separate them
    from the meat. Oh, like you’re going to learn all these things that are going to force you to have to
    change things. But if you do that before, you know, if that copying works or not, you’re just going to
    increase the likelihood of screwing it up and thus not being successful.
    That’s interesting. You know, Monish Pabrai, who’s come on this podcast a couple of times,
    has this phrase, he calls it being a shameless, a shameless cloner. And so he says, you know,
    I’m a shameless clone of the Buffett and Munger philosophy. I, you know, I claim to have no,
    no good ideas except for one, which is, you know, to copy the good ideas that already exist out there.
    If I hear a good idea, I take it on as my own. Right. And he talks about, you know,
    the dumbest person in the world is the gas station across the street from a more successful gas
    station. He’s like, cause you know, you see that guy and that guy comes out when a customer’s there
    and he washes their windows for them and he prices it a certain way. And he’s uses certain bright lights
    so that he’s more visible at night. You have to be a real idiot to be across the street, see that guy
    doing it. And then for your own stubbornness, not just do those things, implement those best practices.
    And so pride. Yeah. Yeah. Pride. And I think there’s like, you know, a version of that in
    business. And like you said, you will organically end up putting your own twists on the business,
    but you, you know, you bring up an interesting point, which is that baking in all those twists
    up front is a bit of unnecessary risk. I think there’s a view that entrepreneurs are risk takers
    when actually the risk minimizers and, you know, they’re trying to take as little risk as is necessary,
    but, but are willing to take the necessary risks in order to do something unless there’s like,
    you know, a big asymmetric reward for it. They’re not going to do it. And so, um, you know, I think
    that you’re right. And I think that this is very true for, especially at like the local level and
    service level, like it’s not true. If you’re trying to be a founder, go through YC, build the next big
    thing, the next breakout app, which is going to be, you know, the next social network, you can’t just
    copy Facebook. It’s not going to work, right? The next, uh, the next ride sharing service can’t
    just be Uber, right? They do have to innovate. They do have to do self-driving cars like a Waymo or
    something like that. So this advice does not apply to people who are playing what I call the business
    Olympics, where they’re trying to do the stuff that’s like global greatness, move the world forward,
    disrupt a total industry. Yes, you absolutely do need to be innovative there. But in terms of people
    who are trying to become financially free, you know, working backwards is not a bad way to go.
    I have a very annoying phrase. I say a bunch, which is in my companies, anytime we have run into an
    issue and people are bitching and moaning about it, I just say, well, we’re probably not the first
    ones to have this problem, right? Because it’s so true. And you’re in an e-com business and suddenly
    you have this supply chain problem. Well, guess what? A thousand or a million other e-commerce business
    have had that same problem and they figured out a way to solve it. So what did they do? Let’s start
    with that. I was talking to actually a friend yesterday who’s, yeah, this guy’s almost a billionaire
    billionaire and he’s in the real estate game and he’s just crushed it on real estate on his own.
    And now for the first time after 15 years, he’s raising money for his projects. He’d never wanted
    to do it. He always wanted to use his own capital, but you know, finally sort of relented and realized,
    okay, I could do bigger scale and do more projects. If I, if I raise capital from other people, not just
    use my own personal balance sheet. And so I told him, I was like, you know, he’s giving me all his ideas
    about how he’s going to raise money. And I’ll go, dude, every real estate guy I know raises money.
    Have you first looked at what they did? Like, why are you trying to figure this out on your own?
    That’s the hard way. There’s no bonus points for doing this the hard way. Like let’s just start by
    reverse engineering what other people do. Like go talk to five to 10 other people who’ve already done
    this. See if there’s a common blueprint, go try that and only innovate where needed along the way.
    When you run into some bottlenecks or some walls that you hit along the way of trying to implement
    that plan, because for most business problems, you can just ask the question, like,
    has anybody else ever solved this? And what do they do? And turns out, it’s almost always like,
    it’s very common. There’s a common problem. There is a common solution. And we should try that first.
    Yeah. Like we, we place our innovation on the wrong thing. We place it on the features and the
    benefits when we should be placing it on being innovative about copying how they’re doing what
    they’re doing. We had a 3PL and you know, 3PLs, right? And it’s like the worst. Nobody likes your 3PL.
    It’s, it’s impossible. And so we saw all the other 3PLs out there when we launched and we’re like,
    oh my gosh, they charge for storage and pick and pack and this and that, and they mark up shipping.
    These guys are idiots. It’s so confusing. So we set out to like innovate the industry,
    simple, flat pricing. And like at the end of that two year experience, like we looked like all the
    other 3PLs because we’re like, okay, oh, oh, they charge for storage because some companies go out of
    business and then they’re left with this big bill and they don’t, oh, that’s why like, so that’s
    another signal is if you see other competitors in your industry and your first thought is like,
    they’re so stupid. Why are they doing it this way? Probably for a reason. Like you just haven’t learned
    that reason yet.
    Especially if they’re successful, right? Don’t copy somebody who’s failing, but if they’re successful,
    you can start with that and say, all right, can I do that as well? And you know, the reason I like
    this idea is because this is not the only way to win. I spent most of my life playing in the innovation
    space and I really love that. It’s super fun to be creative and to come up with the idea that it feels
    really satisfying when you’ve, you’re the first to do something. That’s a, I mean, that’s amazing.
    I’m very proud of that whenever I’ve tried to do that, but that gets talked about a lot. Cause again,
    it sounds super noble and I think that does work, but there are many ways to win. And what I like about
    what you’re saying is that it is another way to win. You say, oh, wow, those guys did that gutter
    cleaning service using next door and their neighborhood in Massachusetts. I should do that in my
    neighborhood in California. Let me start with that. And, and I, and I think that more people
    should do that if they want to actually like be successful in, because that is another way to win.
    It’s not the only way, but it’s another way. Yeah. It’s the midwit meme all over again. Right. Right.
    My, my first business was, yeah, I read about this iPhone repair shop making 30 grand a month.
    And I thought I can make 30 grand a month fixing iPhones in my city. Like it’s kind of an ignorant
    thought, but it worked and I did, you know, so you gotta, you gotta, you gotta be done. Like I,
    like I am. Chris, this is fun, man. I, we still have like half of the doc of other ideas and small
    business and like, you know, random businesses that you’ve come across that we could go for. I think
    maybe, maybe we do a part two of people like this one, uh, to have Chris back. If you, if you like
    Chris, uh, either tweet at me or, uh, put it in the YouTube comments would be best that, you know,
    bring them back because I think this is a lot of fun. I really love the little nooks and crannies of the
    looking in to find these, you know, stump grinding or the hole in one business or the shipping
    container for, for wine tours. Like, you know, this is fun stuff that I think, you know, sometimes on
    this podcast, to be honest, we have brilliant people talking about what you can do with AI and
    what you could do with XYZ. And that’s great. I love that stuff, but those aren’t episodes I can
    send to my sister or my mom because those businesses are kind of out of reach for what
    they want to do. Uh, but I think what’s cool about, you know, the businesses you talk about,
    you know, your pickleball court, this is stuff that anybody could do. Chris, thanks for coming
    on. Maybe give people a shout, uh, shout out your, your Twitter, your podcast, whatever you want people
    to go check out. Yeah. Uh, the Kerner office podcast is where I publish three times a week,
    spelled like my last name. And it’s on your hat. So that’s right. Never miss an opportunity.
    Yes. Always be promoting. That’s right. All right, man. Thanks for coming on. Thanks, Sean.
    All right. So when my employees joined Hampton, we have them do a whole bunch of onboarding stuff,
    but the most important thing that they do is they go through this thing I made called copy that. Copy
    that is a thing that I made that teaches people how to write better. And the reason this is important
    is because at work or even just in life, we communicate mostly via text right now, whether
    we’re emailing, slacking, blogging, texting, whatever. Most of the ways that we’re communicating
    is by the written word. And so I made this thing called copy that that’s guaranteed to make you
    write better. You can check it out. Copy that.com. I post every single person who leaves a review,
    whether it’s good or bad, I post it on the website. And you’re going to see a trend,
    which is that this is a very, very, very simple exercise, something that’s so simple that they
    laugh at. They think, how is this going to actually impact us and make us write better?
    But I promise you, it does. You got to try it at copy that.com. I guarantee it’s going
    to change the way you write. Again, copy that.com.

    Episode 717: Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) talks to Chris Koerner about how to make millions from local side hustles. 

    Show Notes:

    (0:00) Intro

    (2:13) Idea: Hole-in-one golf challenge

    (12:24) Idea: Bitcoin mining

    (16:00) Idea: Garage shelving

    (17:18) Idea: Tourist traps for home markets

    (20:13) Idea: Toasted tours

    (24:56) Idea: Buc-ees snack arbitrage 

    (38:01) Idea: Pet cremation

    (45:29) Idea: b2b stump grinding

    (48:13) Idea: Pickleball court

    (58:15) Focus is overrated

    (59:34) Say yes to everything

    (1:05:11) copy-paste millionaires

    Links:

    Want to scale? Get the Side Hustler’s AI Prompt Database: https://clickhubspot.com/wnd

    • The Koerner Office – https://tkopod.com/ 

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    • Shaan’s weekly email – https://www.shaanpuri.com 

    • Visit https://www.somewhere.com/mfm to hire worldwide talent like Shaan and get $500 off for being an MFM listener. Hire developers, assistants, marketing pros, sales teams and more for 80% less than US equivalents.

    • Mercury – Need a bank for your company? Go check out Mercury (mercury.com). Shaan uses it for all of his companies!

    Mercury is a financial technology company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column, N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust, Members FDIC

    Check Out Sam’s Stuff:

    • Hampton – https://www.joinhampton.com/

    • Ideation Bootcamp – https://www.ideationbootcamp.co/

    • Copy That – https://copythat.com

    • Hampton Wealth Survey – https://joinhampton.com/wealth

    • Sam’s List – http://samslist.co/

    My First Million is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by HubSpot Media // Production by Arie Desormeaux // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano

  • How Apple Became So Reliant on China & What it Means For Their Future

    AI transcript
    If you look back in 1999, it’s like completely upside down from today.
    As Tim Cook says, people think that China is about cheap manufacturing, but it’s the skills they have.
    For the global view of trade, it was working exactly as planned for everybody.
    All the experts in 1999 were like two things.
    Yay for global trade. This is what we all want.
    And also, don’t worry. China, they’re going to stay a third world dictatorship forever.
    They couldn’t have been more wrong.
    What if the rise of Apple also built modern China?
    Today’s guest is Steven Sinofsky, board partner at A16Z and former president of Microsoft’s Windows division.
    He led major efforts behind Office, Windows, and introduction of Surface.
    And he’s one of the sharpest minds in tech.
    We kick off with reactions to WWDC, Apple’s new UI, the iPad’s big software shift, and why Apple’s AI story still feels unfinished.
    Then we dive into the heart of the conversation, Apple’s entanglement with China, how it started, what it enabled, and whether it’s now a strategic liability.
    Let’s get into it.
    As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
    Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast.
    For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.
    Steven, I’ve been looking forward to this episode because this is a full circle moment for me.
    You were how I got introduced to A16Z.
    You were on the board of Product Hunt over 11 years ago, which is how I was introduced to you and the firm.
    And I’m glad to be back in business together.
    I couldn’t be more excited for us to be working together on this one and then more in the future, I hope.
    Exactly.
    And yeah, definitely a reunion of sorts.
    Absolutely. So for those who haven’t been longtime fans of the podcast or the firm, you’ve been A16Z for over a decade as a board partner, et cetera.
    And before that, you spent many years at Microsoft helping lead both Office and Windows, and you helped introduce the Surface PCs, which is relevant to the conversation we’re about to have.
    So we’re here to talk about Apple. We’re inspired by the book Apple in China.
    But first, let’s briefly cover WWDC. What reactions or outtakes do we have from it?
    One of the exciting things about this book is that, you know, lots of interesting things to talk about with Apple.
    But WWDC is, you know, their big yearly developer event.
    Of course, it’s always disappointing.
    You know, we’re here to talk about supply chains and China and gadgets, but there’s never any gadgets at WWDC, really.
    But lots of big things to talk about.
    I mean, it’s a remarkable event.
    It’s a remarkable platform that’s been doing yearly releases for 26 years.
    It blows my mind what they’ve done and the scale that they operate at.
    But I think there are three big things that came out of it.
    The first was, you know, obviously the big push.
    It was also the big reaction, which was called Liquid Glass, and it’s the new user interface design.
    So having gone through multiple big user interface redesigns of widely used products, although to be humble about it, not one used by a billion people,
    the reaction is extremely predictable, which is a bunch of people, their heads just explode, and they don’t want it.
    They don’t like it.
    You can always tell they dive in immediately to what problem does it solve.
    So if there’s change, it must solve a problem.
    But there are lots of reasons that designs change.
    And then there’s the reality.
    This was the developer conference.
    So it’s not done.
    And Apple is very, very good at finishing these things.
    And all the bugs and all the issues, I can’t read it, it’s blurry, it’s noisy, those will all get fixed.
    You know, and what’s left is, is it great?
    And is it unique enough?
    And time will tell.
    I basically am reserving judgment and not joining in the hysteria on either side.
    I have no need to defend it and no need to say it’s the worst thing to happen to computing, you know, since ternary processors or something.
    The second thing that I thought was huge, personally, was just that the iPad gets Windows with a lowercase w.
    And I think that’s just fascinating, like, 12 different ways.
    You know, it goes back to the original toaster refrigerator comment or the iPad is different or Steve holding the iPad only like this because it was a book.
    And it’s just a recognition of who uses it and what they use it for.
    I worry it’s a little late.
    Like, I think a lot of people have made up their minds about what to use where.
    Now, the iPad sells an enormous number of units.
    And people who don’t use them don’t understand that.
    They sell more iPads, you know, than the laptop run rate in the U.S.
    It’s a big number.
    And they’re enormously popular with different segments.
    It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
    The weirdest thing about it is, you know, the iPad is a Mac.
    Yeah.
    The Mac is an iPad in terms of the hardware.
    And so you’re really talking about a difference in software and how they deal with that over time and what apps run where and where is the experience is going to be super interesting.
    The third thing was more an act of omission than commission and which was AI.
    Right.
    And the whole event sort of started with Craig, like, apologizing, not really apologizing, but in an Apple way, which was like it took more time than we planned.
    So we’re not going to talk about it anymore.
    Yeah.
    And I personally think that, you know, months ago when they, with a great fanfare, launched all these AI features, that was out of character for them.
    They announced a bunch of stuff that they weren’t done with yet, that hadn’t baked.
    It was the right stuff, but they didn’t capitalize on it, to be polite.
    And I think what they’re probably doing is saying, we’re not really good at this pre-announce, catch up to our own announcements thing, which, of course, I grew up doing.
    So I’m, like, completely comfortable in that world of just make stuff up and hope you catch up or people forget.
    And so I think that they’re back to, like, we’re not the first mover company.
    We’re the first integrator company.
    And they’re going to just sit back and watch the technology mature a little bit more.
    But they do have a hole in a perception sense, which is Siri and what they’re going to do about that.
    And to not talk about it very much is interesting.
    A lot of people have commented on the sort of the failures of Apple intelligence or just Apple’s sort of inability to capitalize on this innovation.
    You know, we just saw Meta, you know, purchase 49% of scale.
    So they’re making some big moves.
    How do you make sense of Meta’s move?
    And could we see Apple do a similar type of play where they sort of buy the talent in-house?
    How do you think about that?
    I think what Meta is doing, at the very least, it’s great for AI.
    You know, I’ll let Meta decide how great it is for Meta or whatever.
    But it’s great for AI.
    And the reason is, is that if you go back, the way platforms have been evolving, you know, in mainframes, IBM had 100%.
    In PCs, Microsoft had 95%.
    Then you start getting out there.
    And then in servers, actually, it ended up being, like, at best case, 50-50.
    And it’s been downhill, and it’s all Linux now.
    In phones, you have this split, you know, 80-20 globally, but you have to really dig down by country where it’s 80-20 the other way.
    Yeah.
    And in cloud, it’s very likely we’re going to end up, you know, in a sort of a 40-40-20 kind of world.
    Yeah.
    And so AI, it’s almost inconceivable that there’ll be one winner.
    Right.
    And the overlay is China and how that plays out.
    And the mobile industry is a really good example of how difficult it is.
    You know, the smartphones, so to speak, Japan had this huge lead in this thing called iMode, but it only existed in Japan.
    And so they were leaders in technology and experience.
    They had all these micropayments, all this stuff, but it didn’t go anywhere outside of the country.
    And so the biggest risk to AI is that either someone tries to think it’s only one player, which at times the federal government has acted like that, or one player says it should only be us, which there is a player sort of claiming that.
    Or it gets geographically constrained.
    It doesn’t matter which one of those might happen.
    To prevent any one of them, you just need a lot of players operating at huge scale.
    Yeah.
    And so in the startup world, you have Anthropic and you have OpenAI, you know, and you have in pure open source, you have Meta.
    Then you have Microsoft and Google.
    So we have like innovation happening on all cylinders and all fronts, which is great because the competition, you know, is basically making the call that it’s going to be one.
    And it’s sort of going to be this government-driven approach.
    It might not be one company, but it will be one approach that’s sort of sanctioned in some way.
    And it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.
    There’s nothing better than more and open for AI right now.
    It’s worth just commenting on the market structure point because when we look back at the last few years of our sort of growth investing in this category, we’ve been very aggressive, but we regret not being even more aggressive.
    And because one of those principles was, hey, we want to back the market leader.
    And so when you see a second place company, we’re like, hey, it’s not the market leader.
    But in this market, as you mentioned, it’s not winner take all or just the market is so big that even the second place or third place can be, you know, generational companies.
    And we’re not even at the point yet where I believe we’ll get, which is the initial go to market has all been this cloud based thing.
    But there’s all these challenges with that, like privacy and security and cost.
    And so the idea that we would foist variable cost on the entire world of software, very tough for me as a fixed cost, low price volume mindset to think we’ll sustain.
    So I think there’s a whole wave of AI on the edge that’s going to happen, which only benefits from open.
    There’s nothing but positive to say.
    Yeah.
    Does it make sense to look at this Alexander Wang or this sort of scale as something of like a $15 billion aqua hire of Alex plus the top talent at scale?
    And if you’re advising Apple, do they or even some of the other big incumbents need to do something similar?
    Obviously, Microsoft is well-suited with open AI to begin with.
    But if you’re Apple, how do you think about how to play here?
    Well, I think, you know, the two plays are going to, or three, one is going to be the sort of the weird partnership dance play that Microsoft and open AI have.
    It seems obvious that at some point, you know, Microsoft will have much more first party software.
    There’s the, we have always made our play by just having everything, which is Amazon.
    And so anything that comes out, they’re going to end up supporting, which is just how retail works.
    Like you get all the cereals, not just Froot Loops.
    And then I think there’s just the, where we’re going to go at our own way in a sense, which is Gemini taking their approach or open AI itself or Anthropic itself.
    And I think that Apple needs to pick one.
    You know, they did announce like, hey, you can call any model through our API.
    But the real thing that Apple needs to do is figure out what model is going to be tuned to run on their unique hardware on the edge and their unique offering or constraint, depending on, of privacy and how that plays out.
    And just to evaluate one of those paths, if Satya could go back in time, knowing what he knows now, do you think he might have done something or would you have considered doing something different?
    How should we think about how this has worked out for Microsoft?
    Oh, these are tricky things.
    You can’t ask me questions about my friends.
    But I wouldn’t, putting it aside as advice, I would say, I genuinely, to those listening, I do not know anything that’s going on.
    But Microsoft has been involved in AI research since 1993.
    They were the first hires into Microsoft research when the labs were formed.
    I was working for Bill way back then.
    And, you know, Satya worked closely with those researchers when he was the manager of the Bing team for a while, because that was the cornerstone of what Bing was doing,
    because that’s what Google was doing in, say, 2006, 2007, something like that.
    And I think that I would not be at all surprised.
    I don’t know anything.
    I swear, people, you know, that there’s some first party thing that they’re just trying to figure out when and how good does it have to be?
    Because if you are Microsoft, it turns out that, like, the strength of Microsoft is that you never have to be best.
    You just have to be included.
    Yeah.
    And so it’s likely that that will be their play.
    That’s generally how enterprise software works.
    It’s the inclusion and the bundle.
    Right.
    That customers value and pay lots of money for.
    Yeah.
    Not being the very, very best at any given moment.
    Right.
    It’s fascinating how all the big players have kind of crystallized their approaches in response to each other.
    Oh, yeah.
    Meta’s approach, Google’s approach, you know, Microsoft’s approach.
    Anyway, I want to segue to the main focus of our conversation today, which is not a book review of Apple in China, though it’s a great book, but inspired by the book.
    There’s a few things I just want to say.
    First, just the notion that I believe they said Apple invests $55 billion a year in China.
    And I think the author said that’s equivalent or maybe even bigger than the entirety of the Marshall Plan.
    This is just astronomical.
    And this book talks about how Apple not only built its company in China, but also helped build China itself, China’s sort of manufacturing economy, and introduced the level of talent and knowledge or sort of taught China not just how to build phones, but that same sort of knowledge then led them to help build Tesla, which are phones on wheels, and then led to other technologies used for the military, which we’ll get to.
    But first, I just want to ask, was this inevitable?
    Did this make sense at the time?
    How do we make sense of this 20 years later?
    How did this all happen?
    It is crazy how it all happened.
    I mean, I think you go back, of course, Apple, we all know it was in the garage in Palo Alto.
    They famously built the computers there.
    But the thing was, from the very beginning, Apple itself was all about super tight control.
    I mean, first you had Waz basically creating works of art on the motherboard, and then they built a factory.
    There was the factory right here, and that’s where they built computers.
    And they just kept doing more of that, tight control, build the whole computer.
    Then Steve left Apple.
    Macintosh, of course, was famously the same thing.
    And Steve pushed and pushed on costs and the shape of it, made the famous toaster that you carry around and things like that.
    But after Steve left, the company had enormous difficulty competing with the IBM PC.
    One of the things that it did later in the late 1990s was a super innovative laptop.
    Now, everybody’s like, what does an innovative laptop mean?
    Well, it turns out in the late 1990s, laptops, nobody bought them.
    They were slow, expensive, bad computers.
    They were just portable.
    That was their big thing.
    And if you had to have one, you did.
    But they built this thing that was the original portable for Mac called PowerBook.
    And they tried to cram a lot.
    They tried to make the best laptop possible.
    And in order to do that, they ultimately were hitting the limits of manufacturing in the U.S.
    And so Jean-Louis Gasset, who was running the Macintosh business at the time, he was a very famous French executive for Apple that Steve hired to run Apple France, working for Scully.
    He actually pushed to do an experiment of partnering with Sony in Japan to build a PowerBook.
    And so the original PowerBook line had sort of three computers of different sizes, power, and whatever.
    And the one model was done as a joint design effort, which was just incredibly brazen for Apple culture to, like, break out like that.
    And they did.
    And, like, it came back.
    And the people at Apple were like, wow, man, this is not so bad, you know.
    And it wasn’t the best-selling model, a lot of complexity.
    And you could read all about it in this book or other places.
    But a light bulb went off.
    Maybe this helps us solve some of our constraints.
    Now, they had other constraints, like the chips were wrong for the Mac.
    The PC was, like, half the price.
    Like, a lot of problems they had.
    But it was like a wow moment.
    And that was really interesting.
    But they were failing at computers.
    Tim Cook joins Apple in, like, 1997.
    And he comes from IBM.
    And at IBM, he was about making PCs.
    And he shows up, and he’s already working this whole kind of world of supply chain and all this other stuff.
    He then later goes to Compaq, which is a famous Texas-based computer maker.
    And really helps them drive that whole motion of building in China.
    And I’ll talk about that maybe in a minute.
    But the thing that gets built by Apple then in 1999 is this iMac G3.
    Now, most people aren’t old enough to remember it.
    But it was this sort of gumdrop-shaped, translucent, Johnny Ive creation.
    And you look at that, and you’re like, wow, that’s neat.
    And you’re like, no, no, you don’t understand.
    It was impossible.
    Like, every element of that computer couldn’t be built.
    Not just the stuff that they left off.
    Like, it didn’t have serial ports and parallel ports and all this other stuff.
    But it was, like, clear plastic.
    Computers came in gray, stamped aluminum metal boxes with screws.
    And this was, like, a tool-less, fan-less, like, amazing thing.
    And it was all done through this kind of China-based manufacturing stuff.
    But it was done in a very unique way at the time, which was the Apple people just went there
    and smothered the manufacturing line every step and samples back and forth and this whole deal.
    And I’m glossing over a very complex timeline of events.
    It sounds a little bit more all or nothing and sudden, but it’s a very gradual transition.
    But this product was huge.
    And then the next one was the iPod, right?
    And so now they’re already comfortable with this model a little bit.
    But the iPod, all of a sudden, the assembly of it starts to look like almost a War Games screen of all these incoming things.
    Because it’s like a disk drive invented in Japan, manufactured in Thailand, and all the stuff is coming together.
    And all the parts, the click wheel and everything are in China.
    And it’s all of a sudden being made in one place in this incredible form factor.
    If you were to look at the other media players at the time, they were these big honking, they looked like game console things.
    Like, not this solid deck of cards glued together with no tolerances.
    I mean, it was incredible.
    And so that was really the start of designed in Cupertino, manufactured in China.
    Right.
    And that whole process.
    And that was celebrated at the time, right?
    Because we were excited about sort of more integration with China.
    And so that wasn’t seen as such a problematic thing at the time, right?
    Absolutely.
    It’s even more than that.
    This was like hailed as like, this is the modern way to do business.
    An example of this that’s just super close to home about how things have changed was that in 1999,
    the World Trade Organization gathered in Seattle to ratify China as a member of the World Trade Organization.
    And this is the organization that sort of navigates tariffs and trade rules between countries.
    All the cool countries were in it, but not like communist, socialist China with, you know, a totalitarian government.
    And so the Clinton administration had really pushed for China to come in.
    And it actually split the Democratic Party.
    People today, their heads would explode if you tried to sell it.
    And it turns out the Republicans were split, too.
    Yeah.
    Because half the Republicans were like, free trade, free trade, free trade.
    And the other half were like, we hate communism.
    So the whole world, if you look back in 1999, it’s like completely upside down from today.
    And there were huge riots in Seattle.
    Like the city was like a mess over this moment because it was viewed as this pro-business, anti-labor kind of thing because it just meant cheap outsourcing in China.
    Now, the reason for that was because that was the whole direction of American business.
    There’s a very famous book in the 80s called In Search of Excellence.
    And In Search of Excellence is sort of this Jack Welchian GE management mantra of like what you do, you stick to your knitting.
    Like you do the stuff that you’re good at and you outsource everything else.
    And you figure out that core part of your company.
    And that was what you just did.
    Like you don’t have full-time people to water the plants.
    You don’t have full-time people to cook in the kitchen.
    You don’t have full-time people manufacturing.
    You just do that elsewhere.
    And that was the state of American business.
    It was like, let’s get into China.
    We got the support of the president.
    It’s the whole global market.
    Let’s reduce trade barriers between countries.
    And so it was celebrated as the start of a whole new industrial era.
    So at what point did that change both for Apple as a company that they realized, hey, maybe we have some risks here, but also from a geopolitical standpoint?
    Was it when Xi came to power?
    Was it when Trump was elected?
    How did things start to change?
    It helps on this one to go a little bit backwards, I think, because before we get to like when did Apple recognize, we should say there are other examples of everybody doing this.
    And the reason it’s important is because it contrasts with Apple, which is the PC industry created what enabled Apple to do what Apple did.
    So Apple was on this path of let’s manufacture in China and let’s keep very tight control.
    But the PC industry had a whole different approach, which was this much more classical in search of excellence outsourcing method.
    So Dell and Compaq, which were the two big makers with IBM, were in Texas.
    And, you know, Michael was building PCs in his dorm room and then they had a factory in Texas.
    Compaq were some business guys who like built a whole factory in Texas.
    And the parts were being flown in from wherever they came from, disk drives from this country, CPUs from Intel in the U.S., whatever, cables from China and stuff like that, and assembling them in the U.S.
    But the problem was they were all standard parts.
    When you bought a computer from Dell and from Compaq, if you open them up, Intel processors, Seagate disk drive, also from U.S.
    And so they were really not competing on who could buy those parts and put them into a gray or beige box more quickly.
    They were competing on the other three P’s of the marketing mix, which is price, place and promotion, not just product.
    And so if you go back to In Search of Excellence, well, the idea is, well, since we can’t compete on manufacturing, let’s just make it as cheap as possible.
    And so Compaq led, they were making the cases for Compaqs, which were these like 15-pound aluminum, like you could, they were like shipping containers, basically, that held the PC.
    They were making those in China.
    So it was the biggest, heaviest part.
    So it sort of made sense to see, like, how many parts could we get in the box before we ship the box to the U.S., which was two-thirds of the market.
    And so they just started going to these assembly plants.
    And they went to one and said, we want you to build our PC.
    And they said, you got it, because they are hungry.
    And they were just having the ability, because of WTO and all this other stuff, to open up and just do business.
    And so they were like the capitalists in South China.
    And so they were like, whatever you want us to do, we’re going to do it.
    And so Compaq, they want secrecy and intellectual party.
    So they were like, we’ll build you a building.
    And so all of a sudden, Compaq had a building that was theirs.
    And then they went to Dell.
    And they’re like, we’ll build you a building, too.
    And also, there’s this other company that makes music players.
    They have a building over here.
    And all these makers were starting to serve multiple PC companies.
    And then the PC companies were like, hey, this is kind of working for us, because we’re crushing Apple in the marketplace.
    And our PCs are getting cheaper, and people are buying more, and the Windows 95 thing is taking off.
    Everything is just dandy.
    And so they started just like saying, hey, we don’t even need engineers, whereas Apple was like flying more and more people to do more and more advanced stuff.
    They were like, more gray boxes, more interchangeable parts, more lower cost.
    We’ll just keep selling more and making it up in volume.
    And that’s exactly what was happening.
    And so these people, which were called ODMs, Original Design and Manufacturers, were saying, you just tell us roughly what you want.
    We’ll make it.
    And so you’d go to meetings with them, and they would just show prototypes of all the computers they could build.
    And you’d pick.
    You want this one?
    And they’re like, go ahead a little taller, smaller, thicker, thinner.
    We want to be able to swap out graphics cards.
    Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
    And here’s the Dell logo on it.
    And then they got very, very good.
    So they were effectively moving up the stack and becoming product makers and designers.
    And the reason is very simple.
    They also couldn’t compete on labor.
    Like the way that the government was working, the socialist part of this experiment was you can’t live anywhere you want in China.
    You live where you’re born, and if you want to move, it’s a whole thing.
    You’re not allowed to just move.
    But what China was doing was taking all the hundreds of millions of poor people and letting them live temporarily in all the factories of all kinds,
    clothes and cars and computers, and live for part of the year, and then bring massive amounts of cash back to the world.
    And that’s how China lifted a billion people out of poverty.
    Yeah.
    Well, those are all the same workers.
    So you can’t get a better deal on labor.
    Right.
    And then you’re all going to the same ODMs who are building the same factory, so it’s hard to get a better deal on that.
    So the ODMs, in order to compete, they were moving up the food chain, and the American electronics world, whether it was TVs or whatever, we’re like, yeah, or Japan, doing it with Sony.
    We’re like, we love this.
    Just keep showing us more stuff we can put our name on, and we’ll just focus on sales and marketing and distribution and branding.
    We’re awesome.
    And by the way, like, little things, like, there were all of a sudden 50 different music players.
    Yeah.
    Because all that knowledge was distributed throughout all these makers.
    And so it was very, very interesting.
    Now, what’s it like to visit one of these ODMs?
    These guys are crazy.
    So you think, like, when I first went.
    You’ve been there a few times?
    A bunch.
    Oh, I lived in China, like, in 2004, even.
    And that’s all I did was visit all these people all the time, and the government, and we’d go on forever.
    But the thing about these was, you know, you’d think you’d go, and it’s like a factory.
    Like, how exciting.
    And I’ve been to, like, car factories and washing machine factories, because they’re all Microsoft customers.
    So you go, and you visit them, and they all show you plants and stuff.
    And you go, and all of a sudden, you’re like, oh, my God, this is like a hospital.
    And I’d been to Intel, which is an operating room.
    Like, it’s all bunny suits and all the other.
    But they’re just showing me parts.
    It’s the same thing I do in my living room when I buy a PC.
    Like, I’m just putting all the parts here.
    But these things are football field-sized.
    And I should say, just for a baseline, I did summer jobs at the factory that built intercontinental ballistic missiles
    and surface-to-air missiles in Orlando.
    So I’ve seen big, giant factory floors before.
    There are, like, thousands of people on hundreds of acres of assembly.
    And you just watch, like, computers flying off.
    And so the owners of these are very proud.
    You go, and you meet the CEO, founder of these ODMs, and they take you on the tour.
    They show you everything.
    They show you every step in the line.
    But, you know, they show you the one you’re allowed to see.
    So, like, I was at Microsoft.
    I couldn’t see any of them.
    But I could see he was very proud to always show me, like, one step in the process.
    And that was the step when they attached the Windows logo to the PC, something Steve Jobs would never have allowed.
    But the Windows logo meant it was a legal copy of Windows.
    The whole reason I moved to China was because they were stealing Windows in office left and right.
    And my job was to sort of somehow help to see if we could stop that.
    But they were very proud and very legal about that step.
    And so I have lots of photos of stickers being put on computers.
    And then you go and you just go outside, and he goes, that’s where we make HP laptops, and this is where we make those other laptops that we’re not allowed to tell you about.
    And that’s the difference.
    And what was going on in the Apple building was just super important.
    Right.
    And that’s where he gets the answer of your question.
    The Apple building, fast forward a little bit, and they’re building what became the MacBook Air.
    Yeah.
    And so, like, the MacBook Air goes back to the original PowerBook 100 experiment, which was, how can we take what basically suck, which are laptops that Windows people use?
    Like, give you an idea.
    Like, when the MacBook Air came out, the typical knowledge worker in a company was traveling with about six pounds of computer gear.
    Yeah.
    Which was a laptop.
    It was probably an inch and a half thick, nine by 12.
    It had one of these padded laptop cases that you sometimes see.
    It was awful.
    I actually wouldn’t even travel.
    I only used, like, Japanese laptops that were fit in envelopes and stuff.
    So, Apple was building the MacBook Air.
    And so, now we know it was this machine-milled aluminum chassis in that building that they showed us.
    And it was, like, remarkable.
    Now, Steve held it up and put it in an envelope, and everybody, ooh, it fits in.
    And I’m like, my Sony fits in an envelope.
    But my Sony was $3,500 made by hand in Japan.
    Yeah.
    And this was kind of a miracle.
    And the problem was that the ODM, who was on tour with me – so, this is what happens.
    You go on the tour.
    They take you up a secret elevator.
    And then it’s like you’re literally above the factory.
    And all of a sudden, I’m, like, in a Bond movie.
    The elevator door opens, and you’re in this football fieldside office with a tea ceremony room and, like, weird ancient suits of armor for art.
    Were you ever terrified?
    I was completely terrified.
    And, of course, no one ever gets hurt.
    But what the hell – like, I’m, like, looking, is there a stairway that’s going to turn into a slide, and I’m going to end up being eaten by tiny sharks or something?
    But there’s, like, ancient scrolls.
    And we have to go through in every single piece of art.
    I’m getting the story.
    And I’m, like, I’m jet lagged, and I have to pee.
    And, like, I’m here to just make sure the stickers are going on the laptops.
    But I’m getting the full deal.
    And then we sit down, and he’s like, the Windows people are losing.
    That’s me.
    Yeah.
    And because I am building these great things.
    And then he shows me prototypes for all these Windows computers.
    So these are the ones that he built without any help from the Apple people.
    Wow.
    And he’s like, we could build these, but we can’t convince Michael or Compaq or anybody to build them.
    They’re too expensive or whatever.
    I can make them cheaper.
    Also, and this is where they get candy.
    It’s, like, it’s very difficult to work with those people.
    They don’t give him any degrees of freedom.
    He can’t be creative.
    But he also can’t move up the stack.
    And the PC people just wouldn’t do it.
    And so two lessons from that.
    One is that Apple taught them how to do this.
    Now, they didn’t plan on doing that.
    Right.
    But osmosis happens.
    Yeah.
    And they got all these skills.
    And then the other was Apple was still going to uniquely do it.
    And no one else was going to come and invest that money.
    Now, we were there also at one point to help get Surface built.
    We were actually doing it to solve the problem.
    The reason Surface exists is because the PC makers wouldn’t build, like, an aluminum computer, basically, or an all-in-one, for that matter.
    And so we did a whole different approach to metal.
    We actually built a whole metallurgy plant to do injective magnesium alloy for the original Surface computer that ran NVIDIA chips and all this other stuff.
    And we were willing to make cases of any size or shape for the OEMs.
    But they just saw it as a niche.
    And so the PC makers just continued to stamp out routine things for at least three more years until Intel finally invested a bunch of money in the OEMs via pricing to get them to build what today look like laptops for Windows called Ultrabooks.
    But Apple just continued to do that, and they were building that expertise just inadvertently.
    And then Intel came in and piled on more.
    And so more people knew, except in the sort of the slightly more open part of China.
    And so it was like this slow-moving osmosis that gets us to the point where, as Tim Cook says, people think that China is about cheap manufacturing.
    But it’s the skills they have.
    Nobody else in the world could run 500 prototyping aluminum milling machines at one time and produce the right defect rate and save all the waste and develop all the stuff.
    When we were making Surface, you know, you have to use all this pressure-sensitive adhesive and keep all the things together to make it USB thickness.
    And, like, nobody here knows how to do that.
    They were telling us what they were doing.
    Yeah.
    And that is what happened.
    And it was not a design.
    And that’s one of the differences I have with the book.
    The book is clear it wasn’t on purpose, but it still makes it seem like we could have stopped it at any point.
    Not only do I not see that we could have, there was no interest in stopping it.
    For the global view of trade, it was working exactly as planned for everybody.
    Yeah.
    Let’s now get back to when did that start to change?
    I don’t know if it’s going to the book or someone said, hey, China has Apple by the balls or has us by the balls.
    Let’s talk about that.
    And when did we realize that happened?
    At one point, it’s the point of no return.
    So the point of no return was basically, I would say, two years into the iPhone, the scale was such, there was nowhere else.
    I’m sure Apple would just argue, oh, there was no way we could even have started the iPhone anywhere else.
    And I could tell you, like Surface, there was no chance.
    And that’s a low volume product.
    There was no chance.
    And most things are very low volume, which makes the non-recurring engineering costs much higher.
    So even more impossible to build.
    All the startups, you can’t even consider doing that.
    So the point of no return happened so long ago that it’s sort of a weird thing to think about $50 billion a year in investment because that’s not what did it.
    What did it was this weird – no, that’s definitely the wrong word.
    This unique blend of socialism or totalitarianism and entrepreneurship.
    And that’s the thing that all the experts got wrong.
    All the experts in 1999 were like two things.
    Yay for global trade.
    This is what we all want.
    And also, don’t worry.
    China, they’re going to stay a third world dictatorship forever.
    They couldn’t have been more wrong.
    Frankly, that’s how I felt living there.
    You know, like, yes, obviously, it feels socialitarian.
    Like, you turn on CNN and you’re watching and then it vanishes.
    And you’re like, well, that was weird.
    You try to connect to a website randomly from the link and you can’t see it anymore.
    And there are all these people that work for the government in our office and I can’t talk to them and I don’t know why they’re there.
    I’m their boss.
    It’s super weird.
    Like, there’s a lot of stuff that as an American, you’re like, this is just kind of strange.
    But you go to the ODM, I could have been visiting Kimberly Clark in a plant or Kellogg’s.
    It looked like a factory with a person who was like, just tell me what I can make and sell.
    I’m there for you.
    And so you’re in this weird hybrid world that was completely predicted wrong.
    And so you wake up and you’re like, oh, well, they were really working.
    And a great way to think of it is like the car industry.
    So the car industry, there was no auto industry when I was living in China.
    All the cars were Volkswagen or Mercedes.
    And that’s what everybody drove around.
    If you owned a car, you owned a Volkswagen.
    If you got driven around, you got driven around a Mercedes.
    And that’s just how it was.
    The way they got there was by doing these joint ventures with the China.
    And that was the mandated way.
    And the joint venture came with these terms that were onerous.
    Like, you had to give them all your IP.
    And for us, like, even to get a license to sell software, not that anyone was buying it legally,
    but to sell software, you had to sort of allow these inspectors to come in and see stuff.
    And, like, we had to shut down Hotmail for forever because, like, we wouldn’t let them see the data center servers,
    which weren’t even in China and all sorts of complexities.
    But if you wanted to sell into the world’s largest population market, that was your choice, comply or not.
    In the meantime, the entrepreneurs in southern China, they’re not looking at Beijing for government direction.
    They’re actually going, well, we have to beat Korea.
    We have to beat Japan.
    We have to beat Singapore.
    We have to beat Vietnam or Indonesia.
    And those are all their neighbors, and they see them all.
    And so the car companies, if you just fast forward, they all are out of China now.
    These joint ventures, they could never get their money out.
    They lost all their IP.
    They’re manufacturing.
    It’s just horrible.
    Volkswagen, Ford, Mercedes.
    It’s just been a nightmare.
    Tesla didn’t have to do a joint venture, which is sort of the modern thing, just like Apple, where they were allowed to operate.
    But it turns out there are all these soft ways that the company could be miserable.
    That’s where it goes from entrepreneurship to the socialist totalitarianism, where, you know, the Communist Party could just say,
    we all need to have phones, and we like this model from Huawei.
    Or we’re picking a new 5G standard, and it’s going to step all over the Qualcomm patents,
    but it’s only in China where we enforce the laws.
    And you’re like, but the WTO says the what says what?
    And you get really stuck on this kind of stuff.
    And I think what everybody learned was in, say, 2000s, 2010, was it very easy to pour money into China,
    but it doesn’t come out.
    The returns just aren’t there.
    And then it’s also easy, if you’re one of the blessed sort of companies, to sort of grow,
    But then all these soft things happen.
    Now, a lot of people love to say how that’s just totalitarian governance, but they forget, like, the history of trade in America.
    Yeah.
    Or we talk about the EU a lot.
    But, you know, we have a lot of these soft things, too.
    Like, when San Francisco County wants to buy fleet vehicles, they just say, well, they have to be American cars.
    Right.
    They don’t even think about it.
    They’re like, step one has to be an American car.
    And when the Defense Department buys stuff, like, there’s a massively thousand-page list of all the things that you have to check off in order to be sold to the Defense Department.
    To the outside world, that looks like safety and security, but it also could be viewed just as much as protectionism.
    It’s just two sides of a coin.
    Yeah.
    When we look at Apple’s dependency on China, when does this go from this is great to, okay, this is actually an existential risk for the company?
    Or would you say we are there yet?
    Or how is this developed into the current era?
    The easiest way to view the wake-up call is through the lens of COVID, I think, which is all of a sudden, the entire world learned that this global system, while great for prices,
    great for in search of excellence, focus on what you’re knitting and what you do well, it turns out it’s actually pretty fragile.
    Yeah.
    And it’s fragile because there’s single points of failure all over the place.
    Yeah.
    And in this case, the single point of failure turned out to be, like, if this city is closed, no one can go into the factory.
    Yeah.
    And then if transit is closed, then the stuff can’t make it.
    And so I just think COVID was the wake-up call for the whole system.
    And, of course, at a national security level, it’s massively important now because you can’t afford to have a nation shut down.
    Right.
    Because of these things.
    And if all the technologies are based on chips, which are assembled in one place and packaged by these people who have all the skills to package them, you go, well, that’s sort of a problem.
    Now, the Defense Department long ago figured this out for, like, guns and rockets.
    Like, those are all made in the U.S.
    The military sidearm is a Beretta pistol, which is the oldest company in the world in Italy.
    And the first thing Italy did to win the bid was set up a factory in the U.S.
    And so good news, we have plenty of sidearms that we could throw at the drones or something.
    But drones is the opposite end of the spectrum.
    All of a sudden, drones are the most important thing.
    And, like, all of a sudden, we were like, not just we don’t make the drone, we don’t make any of the parts for the drone.
    Yeah.
    And the only person who makes them is our enemy, so to speak.
    So this seems to be a problem.
    And so let’s say Trump brings you in and says, hey, I’ve noticed that nearly all of computing, you know, every layer of stack is done in China and Asia more broadly.
    And I’m trying to sort of decrease our dependencies.
    Microsoft, man, what should I do?
    Well, obviously, there are much smarter people who know more and have much more at stake than I do trying to solve this.
    I mean, you have to do it.
    The thing is, it goes against all these academics that were experts in 2000 that said it was good.
    But they didn’t think about all of these.
    Like, nobody thought that the dependency would be on sort of the replacement for the Soviet Union in terms of long-time enemy.
    No more would we be dependent on the Soviet Union for something than we would be on China.
    There’s no choice in that matter.
    Now, hopefully, our detente with China is already vastly more open than anything that up until 1990 that the Soviet Union was.
    So we’re in a very good sort of peaceful situation there.
    But that doesn’t change the posture.
    And so Apple is, like, doing this experiment.
    It’s obviously more than an experiment to build in India, which solves their problem.
    It doesn’t necessarily solve the current administration’s view of the solution.
    I mean, because if you think of it like the other part of free trade that inverted, twisted, and split the political parties in half in the U.S.
    was NAFTA in the early 1990s, which was, like, free trade with Canada and Mexico.
    What could be more of a no-brainer?
    Well, it turns out it was also the global view of things.
    Like, in fact, NAFTA, half the Democrats voted against it.
    Half the Republicans voted against it.
    The same as WTO kind of stuff.
    And here we are, like, well, that meant that all the jobs just moved to Canada and Mexico.
    Yeah.
    And, you know, long-term, also not having employed people is a bad thing.
    It doesn’t matter if it’s manufactured or anything.
    It’s just, like, weird that just being across a border would so substantially change the economics of what’s made.
    Yeah.
    I mean, especially when you literally just drive the parts back and forth through Texas.
    Yeah.
    It’s kind of weird.
    Or Minnesota or whatever.
    And so I think this reset is happening broadly.
    I don’t like the idea that the people who are very much in favor of this global world sort of ignore inherent risks of the polarized world, but also just immediately jump to no one’s going to pay $5,000 for an iPhone.
    Yeah.
    What an incredibly silly argument.
    Because if you were to look at an iPhone and think about making it by hand, you would go, well, it’s going to cost $100,000 each one.
    It’s like a fancy watch.
    Yeah.
    And so the reason that it’s $1,000 or $1,500 or whatever is because of the innovation in manufacturing.
    So all that needs to happen is, like, another step function change in manufacturing.
    And, of course, for decades, that’s all Apple woke up and thought about.
    So they remained that whole operating mode of Apple’s of being sending zillions of people, being on the factory floor.
    That’s what they do.
    Yeah.
    They rely on skills, but they are there inventing these things.
    Yeah.
    And so if you look at the Apple Vision Pro, like, it has all these lenses and all – they made all of that stuff.
    And so what they’re going to do is they’re going to focus on, okay, if we have to do this, we’re going to also end up with giant factories of robots or better automation or new packaging technologies that don’t require as many – all this stuff that they have already the world leaders in.
    So you’re sort of optimistic that this is a solvable problem, that Apple can decrease its dependency and figure out whether it’s French-shoring or something.
    I think, you know, it’s easy because of the book to focus on Apple.
    Right.
    But, like, everybody faces this problem.
    Yeah.
    Like, even if you make cars in Detroit that are really manufactured and assembled in Canada, like, where do all the in-dash electronics and all the car computers come from?
    Right.
    They’re just flown in on a plane to be glued in.
    And so I’m not just optimistic.
    I mean, this is literally how innovation happens.
    Yeah.
    Like, innovation isn’t invention.
    Invention is, like, was just sitting around thinking what would be really cool to make.
    But innovation is this is the constraints that I have to work in.
    Like, I’m going to solve this problem.
    And nobody loves to do that more than engineers.
    Yeah.
    And so if you’re a packaging engineer, like in the software, hardware, motherboard, like, this is like you live for this.
    How do we reduce the steps?
    How do we reduce the components?
    How do we cram more into – this is, like, your whole focus in life.
    It’s your mission.
    Yes, and they’ve been working on it.
    And so the way innovation happens is the people who have been working on stuff go, I have a totally better idea.
    And then you try it.
    And, oh, this one worked.
    The other thousand didn’t work.
    I mean, that translucent case, like, it’s not like people hadn’t thought of making plastic cases before.
    Yeah.
    And translucent plastic was, like, a thing.
    And then they sat down and they just made it because you can build things.
    Like, that’s a thing that happens.
    And factories are things that can be built.
    Yeah.
    And so, like, I don’t see any reason why.
    I think that the mistake is either thinking that China is about cheap labor or the mistake is thinking that for things to be made in the U.S., it has to recreate 300 million migrant workers on buses working temporarily and going back home.
    That was their constraint.
    Yeah.
    Like, their constraint was we have to employ all these people but not let them move.
    That was their constraint.
    Like, we have an idea.
    Let’s build the factories in Shenzhen and get a bunch of buses and dorms.
    Yeah.
    Problem solved.
    Right.
    We have a different one.
    We don’t have 100 extra million people.
    Yeah.
    We have a lot of money and a lot of intellectual power and a big desire to bring low-cost, high-tech products to people.
    Yeah.
    Let’s build things.
    Gearing towards closing here, you know, it felt inevitable to me sort of that Apple would become this even much bigger than it is today in the sense of – I remember reading the stat of, like –
    Wait, I’m sorry, much bigger than, like, the hugest company in the world, much bigger?
    Because 9 out of 10, I think high schoolers prefer Apple products.
    So when they get to college, when they graduate, like, why isn’t sort of iPhone market share much bigger?
    Why wouldn’t it just keep getting significantly bigger, not just in phone but also in sort of laptop desktop as well?
    But when you look at the risks, maybe the China situation just drastically increases prices if something were to material happen in the short term.
    Or maybe there’s a new form factor that Johnny Ive at OpenAI or someone else figures out that overplays the phone.
    That doesn’t seem super likely in the short term.
    But how do you sort of react to that?
    People always think that you’re either in the school that things are just going to keep going like they’re going to go forever or, like, idiot, this thing is over.
    There’s already a new thing.
    But you can’t buy or touch the new thing.
    And we are in that in-between space right now.
    And I do think that it’s highly likely that new ways to make things will get figured out.
    It’s highly likely that it’s going to get much more competitive in phones only because the target is a little bit more stable.
    And the best way to think of it is, like, Macs are half the laptop market in the U.S. at this point.
    You know, not quite.
    But with segments.
    And so nobody thought that would ever happen.
    But that’s partially because the reason that could happen is because the use case for laptops stagnated at about 2,000.
    And so all of a sudden, I’m basically running a browser and Microsoft Office.
    Yeah.
    And if you’re doing that, a Mac module of the differences in Office is roughly the same.
    And so then if the price is the same at $1,000, why not?
    Half the market is always going to view it as a price point.
    And $1,000 is $200 more than $700.
    And so a certain amount of the market is going to buy the phone that’s free with the plan.
    And that’s just going to happen.
    But more and more of the market will see the phone as, like, you know, a positive part of life and be willing to invest in it.
    Right.
    Like, any branded item.
    I think that’s going to happen.
    But I don’t know what’s going to happen on the device side.
    I think, generally speaking, the form factor is going to last much longer than even the most optimistic people think.
    I mean, there’s, like, a lot of people running PCs still, even though nobody in Silicon Valley knows that.
    But I think, like, it’s just going to be up for grabs.
    There’s nothing written anywhere.
    Bill Gates used to always, always, always have to remind people that Microsoft, any day, somebody could just show up and do a better version of everything Microsoft does because it’s software.
    And the economy of scale, all that stuff, isn’t the barrier that people used to think.
    Manufacturing devices specifically has a barrier.
    But also because of the automation, because of all this work that’s going on, that barrier is just going to drop.
    In fact, it has dropped.
    The only reason that there are so many amazing Samsung phones is because they’ve all seen the movie.
    Like, they know what to do.
    Is there anything else you want people to take either from this book or from this conversation in summary?
    I would sort of just drill down on one issue that I just think is super important for people to really consider in the competition between the U.S. and China and also how it relates to AI,
    which is the difficulty we’re all going to have collectively to navigating the world of intellectual property.
    I think it’s very, very easy to say China doesn’t respect intellectual property,
    so they can’t be part of the world stage flat out.
    I mean, they’ve crushed the pharmaceutical industry that way.
    But on the other hand, it’s just as easy to say, well, because of AI, all knowledge, all content, all information just needs to be free to train and to reuse.
    Neither of those are realistic positions.
    And I think that this issue is far more subtle and far more important than I think either China thinks or the sort of the Digerati in the U.S. think.
    And I believe that that’s one that’s going to need a lot.
    And I worry about wild cards.
    Like, I worry about the European Union going crazy in one direction or another and passing some rule.
    Then all of a sudden, that market is weird.
    Or Japan, which was like went the other way because they have a language challenge, which is Japanese.
    Like they could just – they’re in control of Japanese.
    So they just said, yeah, we could train anything here.
    But it’s like, yeah, but that’s just Japanese.
    Or is it a loophole for English?
    We’re not really sure.
    So I think that that issue is the one where policymakers need to spend the most time.
    But it’s also structured in the U.S. that it’s just – it’s a litigation issue.
    And there’s no way around it.
    So we’re in for years of kind of market uncertainty over how this plays out.
    And that’s been a core part of Apple’s advantage has been their ability to maintain the intellectual property of components and manufacturing and assembly.
    And now that’s dispersed.
    Yeah.
    That’s a good place to end.
    Stephen, this has been a fantastic conversation.
    Thank you so much for coming on.
    Thank you.
    It was great to be back together.
    Thanks for listening to the A16Z podcast.
    If you enjoyed the episode, let us know by leaving a review at ratethispodcast.com slash A16Z.
    We’ve got more great conversations coming your way.
    See you next time.
    Thank you.

    What if the rise of Apple also built modern China?

    a16z’s Erik Torenberg is joined by board partner and former Microsoft Windows chief Steven Sinofsky to unpack how Apple’s pursuit of design excellence and supply chain scale catalyzed China’s manufacturing superpower status – and why that partnership is now under intense scrutiny.

    Inspired by the book Apple in China (but not a book review), the episode dives deep into:

    • The early days of Apple’s shift to Chinese manufacturing 
    • What experts got wrong in 1999 about trade, globalization, and China’s trajectory
    • How Tim Cook’s operational playbook reshaped the global tech industry
    • Behind-the-scenes stories from Microsoft’s own hardware battles and Surface launch
    • Why Apple’s entanglement with China may now be a strategic liability
    • What COVID revealed about fragile global dependencies — and where innovation goes next
    • How national policy, intellectual property, and AI intersect in the new industrial era

    The episode opens with a few reactions to WWDC: Apple’s new UI, the iPad’s evolving role, and why Apple’s AI story still feels unfinished – before zooming out into one of the most consequential tech and geopolitical stories of our time.

    TImecodes:

    00:00 Introduction

    00:37 Guest Introduction: Steven Sinofsky

    00:49 WWDC Reactions and Apple’s AI Story

    02:27 WWDC Highlights: Liquid Glass and iPad Updates

    05:16 Apple’s AI Strategy and Market Dynamics

    06:34 Meta’s AI Moves and Market Implications

    13:30 Apple’s Manufacturing Evolution: From Garage to Global

    20:50 The Rise of ODMs and Global Manufacturing

    26:32 Microsoft’s Struggle with Piracy in China

    27:19 Apple’s Revolutionary MacBook Air

    29:30 Challenges in PC Manufacturing

    31:05 The Rise of Chinese Manufacturing Skills

    32:07 The Point of No Return for Apple and China

    32:59 Global Trade and Intellectual Property Issues

    37:04 COVID-19’s Impact on Global Manufacturing

    41:19 Future of Innovation and Manufacturing

    47:10 Navigating Intellectual Property in the AI Era

    48:55 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

    Resources:

    Find Steven on X: https://x.com/stevesi

    Find Erik on X: https://x.com/eriktorenberg

    Stay Updated: 

    Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z

    Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z

    Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/

    Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenberg

    Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.

  • Raging Moderates: Is Israel the Superpower of the Middle East?

    Scott and Jessica unpack the rapidly escalating war between Israel and Iran under Trump’s leadership. As civilian casualties rise and Trump teeters on the edge of deeper U.S. involvement, millions of Americans take to the streets in the historic “No Kings” protests—pushing back against what many see as his authoritarian power grab. Meanwhile, the NYC mayoral race is turning into a defining battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, with progressive rising star Zohran Mamdani facing off against political heavyweight Andrew Cuomo in a generational showdown that could reshape the party’s direction.

    Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov

    Follow Prof G, @profgalloway.

    Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • What We Value: How Your Brain Really Chooses with Emily Falk

    AI transcript
    Cutting costs isn’t the strategy, it’s a survival tactic.
    But you’re not here to survive, you’re here to thrive.
    That’s why there’s Brex.
    Brex is a finance platform for companies looking to drive growth.
    It’s a corporate card, banking, expense, and travel platform,
    all powered by AI, all built to help your business excel.
    More one-way for startups, more control for scale-ups,
    less busy work for everyone.
    Brex helps you build boldly.
    Go to brex.com slash grow and get a platform that helps you turn finance into a strategic edge.
    Here on Remarkable People, we know that complexity can be the enemy of efficiency.
    That’s the philosophy behind Freshworks.
    While legacy software stacks can slow teams down,
    Freshworks builds intuitive tools that can help your team do their best work without the clutter.
    And when it comes to AI, it’s not about replacing humans.
    It’s about amplifying what makes us remarkable.
    When liberals and conservatives in the U.S. watch the same news stories, for example, news clips about immigration,
    even though they’re watching literally the same movies, the same sentences are being said,
    the same images are on the screen.
    People who share the same political ideology brains are more in sync with their in-groups
    and not as much in sync with their out-groups.
    Hello, it’s Guy Kawasaki, and guess what?
    It’s the Remarkable People podcast.
    We’re trying to help you become remarkable.
    And today’s guest is the remarkable Emily Falk.
    She’s a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
    And that’s a nice way of me saying that she’s part of this mafia from Pennsylvania.
    That’s Katie Milkman and Angela Duckworth and Emily Falk.
    They’re like the next Bob Cialdini’s, the father of influence.
    If I could do my career all over again, if I could go back to school, instead of majoring in psychology,
    I would major in the kind of stuff that they study.
    So she holds appointments in communication.
    Wait, get a load of this list.
    Appointments in communication, psychology, marketing, operations, information, and decisions.
    That’s all she’s an expert in.
    And she directs the Communication Neuroscience Lab and the Climate Communication Division at the Ann and Rudd Public Policy Center.
    Man, that’s a mouthful, Emily.
    You should do a lot.
    I’m really excited to be here today.
    Thank you for having me.
    Listen, I’ve been on both sides of this kind of interview where, you know, you have a new book.
    Emily’s new book is called What We Value.
    So we’re going to talk about how people make decisions about what they value today.
    As I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, there are three components to our decision-making.
    And those components are the value system, the self-relevant system, and the social-relevant system.
    So first of all, if I have those three things right, could you explain what each of them are and the interplay between the three?
    Sure.
    So there are lots of different systems in our brain that work together.
    And in the book, I chose to focus on those three.
    The value system, which offers this final common pathway for decision-making and takes inputs from lots of other brain systems, including our self-relevant system that helps us figure out whether things are me or not me.
    Our social-relevant system that helps us figure out whether it’s our social-relevant system that helps us understand what other people might be thinking or feeling.
    And actually, lots of other brain systems as well, like our sensory systems that help us take in information about the world.
    And our deliberative processing systems that help us think through things and regulate our feelings, our emotional processing systems.
    So there are a lot of different brain systems that are all contributing to our value calculations.
    And the reason that I focused on the self-relevance and social-relevant systems in particular as inputs to that value calculation are because they’re such powerful inputs and because they constrain and also open up possibilities for how we think about ourselves and other people in our relationships, which are some of the most fundamental things we do as people.
    So it’s three of many systems that are really important for our decision-making.
    And just walk us through a simple kind of decision and how those things would interact with each other as we come to our final conclusion, our final action.
    Sure.
    So when you started out by saying three parts, one of the things that I thought we might talk about is that there are these different phases that unfold in our decision-making.
    When we’re making a conscious choice between two options, let’s say, between whether you want to eat an apple or an orange, the first thing is that we decide what we’re choosing between.
    So we identify what the possibilities are, and then our value system assigns a subjective value to each one of those possibilities.
    We choose the one that we think is going to produce the most reward or that our brain implicitly has decided would be most likely to produce reward for the person who’s right here, right now, me.
    And then we keep track of how it went.
    So when things go better than we thought that they would, that’s called a positive prediction error.
    Let’s say I choose the orange and it’s one of those like really juicy, delicious oranges.
    And I don’t know if that was even better than I thought it was going to be.
    Then our brains store that information and inform the choice for next time.
    When things go worse than we thought it would be, let’s say that the orange is like a little bit mealy, maybe really sour.
    We get a negative prediction error, and then we’re less likely to do that in the future.
    So it’s an iterative cycle where we are making these decisions and then learning from them.
    But sometimes we’re so focused on the outcome of what happened that we fail to notice all the stuff about the process that we could have control over.
    Like which things did we imagine were our possibilities in the first place where our self-relevance and social-relevance systems shape and constrain those things?
    And then what parts of the decision are we paying attention to?
    What parts of the choice are we focusing on?
    Because that’s going to change the subjective value that we assign to each option.
    And then finally, that outcome.
    Now, in this rather simplistic decision that we’re making between an apple and an orange, the second step you stated was placing a valuation on these options.
    Now, are you saying that as we choose between these two fruits, I’m thinking to myself, well, if I pick the orange and my hand is dirty, I got to stick my fingernail in there and peel the orange, but apple I can just eat.
    But then I want to say, I want to get more vitamin C because it’s cold season, so maybe I should eat the orange, but maybe I should eat the apple because apple has higher fiber.
    Are all those things happening in my brain?
    And finally, I say, I picked the orange because it looks more delicious.
    So I think the things that you listed are a good example of the fact that this is a subjective, context-dependent calculation.
    And so some people might do what you’re doing, which is say, I’m in a situation where my hands are particularly dirty, and so that’s a factor.
    In some other situations, let’s say you’re at a restaurant and you’ve just washed your hands and there’s a buffet and the fruit’s all peeled and prepared for you, then that wouldn’t be a factor, right?
    And so in the early days of this research, which is actually pretty recent, the past few decades, it wasn’t obvious whether there would be this final common pathway that would be able to integrate all of these disparate kinds of information or whether there would be different brain systems that would compute, like, how much fiber is there in this food?
    How much sugar is there in this food?
    All of the different things, what’s the color, the attributes that you just listed for an apple and an orange?
    One possibility from an evolutionary standpoint is that there are certain kinds of objective features of a food that your brain might want to keep track of and therefore that we would consistently prioritize.
    But in fact, what scientists found in monkeys and also in humans is that’s not what happens, that on a Tuesday, we might make a different choice from the one that we make on a Friday.
    And that depends on the parts of the decision that we’re paying attention to and our recent experiences.
    Are you totally satiated?
    Did you just chug a gallon of orange juice?
    Maybe you never want to see an orange again.
    And so even with this very simple example, you can see all of the different kinds of things that might go into it.
    And then what was really amazing is that it’s not just apples and oranges.
    It’s not just choosing between different kinds of foods, which are in some ways more easily comparable.
    But also, would you rather have an orange or would you rather go for a walk with me?
    Like those are not even both food choices.
    It’s an experience of one kind, a social experience, an experience of a different kind, getting a primary reward of eating the food.
    And likewise, we can abstract away even more and think about inputs like our moral values or how much the different things cost.
    And all of those different things get integrated relatively seamlessly for many of our choices in these value calculations.
    And so when we understand how those are unfolding, I think it can be useful because there are systematic biases in the kinds of things that our brains prioritize.
    For example, rewards that happen immediately are easier to vividly imagine and get weighted more than rewards that we have to wait for, let’s say.
    A lot of these, we are on the borderline of ridiculousness about the factors we’re considering between an apple and an orange.
    Are you saying that these things are going on subconsciously and basically at one point we just pick an orange or are you saying that there are different kinds of people?
    And some people like me are thinking about how dirty your hands are or how much fiber does it have?
    Do I need vitamin A or vitamin C?
    So there’s a couple of different parts of the question that you’re asking.
    So one is, of course, there is variability across people, like people’s brains work somewhat differently.
    Your experiences and my experiences might be somewhat different.
    And so the factors that are going to go into our value calculations are a little bit different.
    Psychologists have studied things like need for cognition and how much people tend to maximize versus satisfy.
    So there’s going to be some differences in the way that we do this.
    But also importantly, and the thing that I like to focus on the most is how much variability there is within a given person,
    depending on the situation that they’re in, the context that they’re in, what their recent experiences are, what their goals are,
    like how much they have attention and motivation to pay attention to what’s happening.
    So for many of our decisions, we’re not going through and deliberatively weighing like all of the different things that you’re describing.
    Of course, I look over at my counter and I’m very lucky that I have both apples and oranges in the house right now.
    And I’m not going to agonize over that decision.
    But if I wanted to shape the choice for myself, let’s say, between whether I choose an orange or whether I choose a bag of potato chips,
    maybe I’m thinking about my health.
    But thinking about something that’s far in the future, like whether I’m likely to get heart disease,
    is working against that kind of priority that my value system puts on immediate rewards.
    And so instead of thinking about, you know, well, I know the orange is better for my health in the long term,
    that’s not really salient or a big priority for the me that’s right here right now in terms of how my value system is going to respond.
    And having the oranges out on the counter and the potato chips somewhere that’s much more annoying to access,
    focusing on how juicy and delicious the orange is going to taste for me right now and how sweet is something that is a feature that I really love.
    So I think it’s not that every single decision we’re consciously going through all of those different attributes.
    Does that make sense?
    Yes, I hope not, because I’m getting tired just thinking about picking between an apple and an orange here.
    So, you know, we use the word value, singular, right?
    The highest value option.
    But picking the highest value option, you have to kick in values plural.
    So what happens if your values are, shall I say, skeptical or evil or bad?
    What if your values are bad?
    Then what?
    What do you mean by if your values are bad?
    Say more about that.
    Maybe not in apples or oranges, but I don’t know.
    Pick something like sending people to El Salvador without due process.
    So what if your values are bad?
    And so you value, I don’t know, supporting your base, but the values that make you support your base in this way is kind of suspect.
    So then what happens between value and values?
    Are you asking about like how a person might make a decision that’s really counter to what some of us might think of as like humane?
    Yes. And I mean, what you value is influenced by your values, right?
    Sure. So I think what you’re getting at is if you think about moral values, like what we think of as right and wrong, which might come from different sources like our spirituality, our religion, our upbringing, our education,
    like those kind of big V values of what’s right and wrong contribute to this value calculation.
    And I think sometimes when people think about a value calculation, that’s what might come to mind for them is like, what are your values, like your core values, your moral values?
    And it goes back to the same thing that we were just talking about, that like when that is what you’re thinking about,
    when you take a step back and you have a minute to think about how you align your day to day actions with those bigger picture values, that that is something that often we can do.
    Of course, sometimes we have different values that are in conflict with one another.
    And philosophers have thought about these kinds of questions for a very long time.
    And what I would say is that we also end up in lots of situations because we are not necessarily taking a step back and thinking about what our bigger picture values and the big V sense are,
    And instead choosing things because they’re easier because they’re popular or because we’re not giving it a lot of attention.
    And so it’s not necessarily that moral values are going to be the most salient attribute in every single calculation for every single person.
    I think that’s a little bit different than the example that you’re bringing up where you and I might have one set of moral values that are core for us and that seem self-evident for us.
    And that then give way to a bunch of different assumptions about what kinds of behaviors would be the right behaviors to choose.
    And those might be different from what somebody else would think of as their core moral values and how that relates to a particular situation.
    You were mentioning questions about immigration policy in the U.S., I think, or alluding to that when we think about how might we treat other humans who are here.
    And in brain scans, if you just indulge me for a second, I will come back to the political question.
    But in brain scans, scientists have looked at how people’s brains come into sync with each other when they’re watching media, when they’re engaging with different kinds of ideas.
    And early work in the space showed that when people watch the same movies, that their brains came into sync with each other.
    So if you watch the good, the bad, and the ugly, like a Western where there’s the director is really directing your attention and in training your brain to go up and down in the same way as the rest of the audience, it’s really captivating you and transporting you into this world.
    We also see that when people have more sort of similar experiences or closer to each other, when they’re friends, when they live close together, then their brains tend to show more of that kind of synchrony going up and down in the same places at the same times.
    And then experiments have shown that when people are communicating, if I tell you a story and you are making the same meaning of the story that I’m making, our brains are going to be in sync with one another.
    And finally, when scientists bring groups of people into the lab and some of the people are told one backstory and other people are told a different backstory, the people who share assumptions about what’s happening in the story, their brains are in sync with one another, but out of sync with people who are told different information coming into it.
    And so I think where that comes back to these questions about what we think of as incontrovertible positions, moral values, and so on, right now we’re at a moment where there’s a lot of polarization about how we should think about what is right and wrong and how we should be and what we owe each other.
    And when liberals and conservatives in the US watch the same news stories, for example, news clips about immigration, even though they’re watching literally the same movies, the same sentences are being said, the same images are on the screen, people who share the same political ideology, brains are more in sync with their in groups and not as much in sync with their out groups.
    And one possibility is that the assumptions that we’re bringing to the table are really shaping so that we’re having a different experience of what we’re seeing.
    We’re making totally different meaning of it.
    And I think there’s behavioral research that complements this about where that might come from.
    For example, when people swap out the news source that they’re watching, when folks who are reliable Fox News viewers watch CNN for some period of time, it changes what issues they’re paying attention to, what beliefs they have about some of those issues, and so on.
    So I think the media that we’ve already consumed are shaping the assumptions that we’re bringing into these new experiences and then bringing us into sync with some people and out of sync with other people.
    So does that get a part of what you’re asking about?
    So with this knowledge about, first of all, you figure out what options you have, then you pick the one with the highest value, and then you track how it’s rewarding.
    If you go with that model, how do we optimize our choice making process?
    If I know that’s what’s happening in my brain, how can I optimize my decision-making?
    Let’s talk a little bit about what it might mean to optimize decision-making, because I think for different people, it might mean different things, right?
    So in the book, the starting assumption that I’m making is that different people have different preferences.
    They might have different hopes and dreams and goals, and that there’s not necessarily always an objectively good decision or bad decision.
    Going back to these very much more simple kinds of decisions, should I eat chocolate cake for breakfast?
    I don’t know.
    If I do that every day for many years, it’s probably not good for my health, and it’s probably not going to set me up to have an amazing feeling in my body.
    But once in a while, let’s say that something really amazing just happened, and that feels like a really special way for me to celebrate, or it’s my birthday, or something like that.
    There might be situations where that’s a perfectly reasonable decision to make, right?
    So I think we have to get clear about what we mean by good decisions and bad decisions.
    And part of what I hope people take away from the book is a little bit more compassion for themselves and others about why we might do the things that we’re doing and then try to set up our decision-making so that more of it makes sense to us, right?
    Sometimes we make decisions where, in retrospect, we’re like, why did I do that thing?
    And so how might we do that in a different way?
    And thinking about back to some of the political examples or how should we treat each other, I think that right now, for me, I’m in a moment where it feels like it’s hard to make good decisions.
    There’s so much going on.
    Every day I’m at the University of Pennsylvania, where the Trump administration has frozen $170 million in research investments to Penn.
    I know the people whose clinical trials are getting paused.
    Like, I know the people whose jobs are at stake.
    There’s a lot going on right now.
    And still, even just thinking about what are the options that we’re choosing between, what might we do in this situation?
    What is a good decision about how to spend my day?
    Is the good decision to focus on my kids?
    I’ve got twin 10-year-olds.
    Is it really to lean into those immediate connections?
    Is it to try to do everything that I can to help people understand the value of science and what’s at stake for the future of our democracy and our health and our innovation infrastructure?
    There are so many possibilities, right?
    And so, getting more concretely back to, like, how understanding what’s happening in our brains might then help shape the way that I think about that kind of problem.
    Like, one thing is that noticing that, like, having such a wide array can be paralyzing.
    I can think about, like, well, okay, what are a few concrete things that I might choose between right now?
    What are the things that are possible for me to do right now?
    And then, let’s say, calling my representatives is something that is likely to be effective in the sense that it’s an individual action that I can take right here, right now.
    It takes two minutes, three minutes.
    And I believe that the congressional aides tally, at the end of the day, how many people called and talked about a particular issue.
    So, it’s something where, when I think about, like, my bigger picture self-relevance system, that’s something that’s an identity that’s important to me.
    Like, being a person who participates in our community and tries to make things better.
    When I think about, then, the social implications of that, like, doing stuff in collaboration with other people is another thing that directly impacts our value calculations and can produce a sense of reward.
    So, like, when I’m feeling alone, when I’m feeling like, I don’t know if there’s anything I can do, remembering that there are these sources that can make something distant and abstract and not vivid, like participating in a political process, feel more immediate, more concrete, more compatible with who I am and what I value.
    And then, also, more enjoyable by doing it with other people.
    That’s one thing that’s been on my mind a lot recently, for sure.
    And plus your two kids, right?
    You’ve got a lot on your mind right now.
    Every business is under pressure to save money.
    But if you want to be a business leader, you need to do more to win.
    You need to create momentum and unlock potential, which is where Brex comes in.
    Brex isn’t just another corporate credit card.
    It’s a modern finance platform.
    That’s like having a financial superhero in your back pocket.
    Think credit cards, banking, expense management, and travel, all integrated into one smart solution.
    More than 30,000 companies use Brex to make every dollar count towards their mission, and you can join them.
    Get the modern finance platform that works as hard as you do at brex.com slash grow.
    So do you think that in step one, which is considering the options, let’s posit that there is this theoretical wise decision.
    Do you think that the danger to making a wise decision is the consideration of too many options or too few options?
    Which way is the better way to go?
    Oh, I don’t think there’s one right answer to that.
    Because we know that this is not necessarily even from the neuroscience literature.
    This is from behavioral economics and psychology.
    We know that having too many decisions that we’re considering can make people throw their hands up and just say, I don’t even want to do this.
    There was a famous set of studies where having too many different jam flavors to choose from goofed people’s decision making up.
    On the other hand, going back to this question of, is there anything that I can do in this situation or that we imagine that our possibilities are constrained because we automatically take things off the table because people like me don’t tend to do this.
    That’s where I think taking a step back and thinking about like, why are these the assumptions that I’m making?
    Why are these the possibilities that I’m choosing?
    So in the book, I talk a little bit about a decision about whether to go and visit my grandmother who lives in Philadelphia.
    She’s 100 years old right now.
    She’s amazing.
    And so she’s one of my very favorite people.
    But knowing that she’s 100, I know that like I’m not going to be able to go for walks with her forever, right?
    And yet, sometimes I feel so hard to even consider that as a possibility with all the other things that are demanding my time and attention, right?
    My job that’s very important to me, my kids that are very important to me.
    And so one of the things that I realized actually listening to a podcast that I really loved called How to Save a Planet was that one of the things that was getting in the way was like I wasn’t even considering going to visit Bev because the traffic is really bad.
    And like the transit time just felt like too much of a barrier and I’d like totally taken it off the table.
    And on this episode of How to Save a Planet, there was an episode about bikes where people were just like having such a delightful time, giggling on their bikes and enjoying their bike rides.
    And that possibility of getting to my grandmother’s house in a way that felt more easeful, more joyful, more like me time, getting to move my body, be outside a little bit.
    That really unlocked something for me, being able to figure out how to get across town in a way that like the time felt good in and of itself, made it possible for me to say, actually, this is something I want to consider doing multiple times a week.
    It’s not something that I want to do once in a while when all the stars align to make it possible.
    And doing it one time, going back to that process of seeing how straightforward it is to do that, and then remembering how enjoyable it is to spend time with this person that I care about, made it easier to make that choice again.
    And so sometimes just like being able to take that first step to see that something that we hadn’t really considered as an option could be an option if we figure out like how to remove the friction and how to instead tip the value calculation in favor through something like biking instead of driving.
    That’s a place where I think we sometimes want to put possibilities back on the table.
    So this is the Katie Milkman theory of bundling something you enjoy, but something that, you know, maybe, well, you still enjoy seeing your aunt, but it’s putting these two things together like Katie, you know.
    You’re thinking about this in terms of temptation bundling.
    Yeah, like exercising and listening to her podcasts.
    Yeah, so Katie Milkman coined the term temptation bundling to say that when we’re making choices and this maps on to the idea that our value systems prioritize immediate rewards.
    So she talked about this a lot in terms of getting exercise.
    So if you don’t want to go to the gym and it feels really effortful for you to go to the gym, then as you mentioned, Guy, she gave people the opportunity to listen to really exciting audio books.
    And so if you’re only able to listen to the Hunger Games when you’re at the gym, then all of a sudden that process of being at the gym can feel much more enjoyable.
    And I think extending that logic and knowing that our brain’s value systems really prioritize those immediate rewards, we have a lot of different options.
    So one is temptation bundling, like Katie’s research highlights.
    Another is figuring out how to make the thing that we’re doing inherently enjoyable.
    For example, choosing an exercise that is more fun for you, like maybe going dancing is actively fun for you, whereas running on a treadmill isn’t.
    And so in the same kind of way, I think it’s a little bit nuanced, but temptation bundling says let’s bring in an external reward, like the podcast, or I’m going to eat a chocolate right afterwards, because that makes it really fun for me to know that reward is going to come with this hard activity.
    I think that’s a little bit different than figuring out how we can make the thing itself enjoyable.
    And so I think you can imagine that the biking could be conceptualized as temptation bundling.
    I get to do this fun thing while I’m also doing another fun thing, visiting my grandmother.
    I was thinking about it a little bit differently, which was like the transit itself, the process of getting there went from being really unpleasant and a thing I didn’t want to do.
    And it was essentially like counterweighting a thing that I knew was something I wanted, going to visit my grandmother, replacing that with an activity that’s inherently enjoyable for me, biking.
    And so I think the value of the neuroscience here in some ways is to say that although there’s some theories about temptation bundling and there are other theories about how vividly we imagine future events, like bringing that psychologically closer in that way.
    And some theories about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and those kinds of things.
    And when we look at what’s happening in our brains, I think it simplifies things in some ways because it says, whatever the thing is that you need to do to figure out how to make this more rewarding now, there are so many possibilities for how you might do that.
    Pick one of them, and then once your brain realizes that the reward is psychologically closer in time or in geographic distance or in social distance, which are all processed in similar ways in our brains, then we can be more successful in making that decision in a way that feels straightforward, if that makes sense.
    Yes, since you opened the door here with Grandma Bev, let me ask you a question.
    So it seems to me that the seminal moment with Grandma Bev talking about how visiting with her, you were on your phone and defocused and all that.
    The seminal moment to me was that Grandma Bev brought it up to you and said, you’re here, but you’re not really here.
    So how do we catalyze those kind of moments with set the whole thing in motion?
    Yeah, so you’re right.
    I didn’t give her due credit when I was just talking about the transportation and the podcast.
    It is true that one night she was over at my house and she’s fantastic.
    She’s figured out how to use ride sharing apps and how to come over to my house and spend time with me.
    And one night when we were out on the block, she said to me, I come over to your house, but we’re not really spending time together.
    And in the moment, initially, I felt really defensive about that.
    I was like, yes, we are.
    Like, I make you dinner all the time.
    Like, you know, you come over, we’re in the same room.
    You’re hanging out with me in the kitchen.
    Like, we’re spending time together.
    And of course, what she was saying was like, I wasn’t giving her my focus.
    When she comes over to my house, there’s a lot going on.
    There’s my kids who need attention.
    And there’s often other family members, my mom, my brother’s wife, his baby.
    There’s a lot going on at my house when we’re all together.
    And so that’s different than having time where we’re just focused on each other.
    And so that was the initial catalyst, you’re right, for me saying, okay, how am I going to shift the way that I’m making this decision to be able to make it a frequent possibility rather than just something that I do once in a while when it occurs to me?
    And I think there are a couple of different pieces to that.
    So one is, I was saying, I felt really defensive when she first brought that up.
    So how do we let go of some of that defensiveness to be able to connect with people that we care about?
    Another piece of that is how do we think about what other people might already know or not know so that we can ask for those things, right?
    That was, in some sense, really important that she told me what she was actually thinking instead of just continuing on feeling resentful or feeling frustrated or feeling disconnected.
    And so in the later part of the book, I talk a little bit about some of the things that motivate us to share ideas or information with other people, which also go back to these value calculations, right?
    I imagine that if my grandma had thought that I was going to be fully dismissive or closed off, then it might not be worth her energy to try to engage me about that.
    And likewise, she has a lot of wisdom being herself and her age.
    So like sometimes when we’re younger, we worry about things like, what’s the other person going to think about me?
    So the social relevance system can both work in our favor, helping us understand other people’s motivations and helping us connect with them.
    But it can also bring up these questions like, what is this going to say about me if I say da, da, da, da, da, da.
    So what’s your advice to the Bev’s of the world?
    Is it like, let it rip, speak up, or maybe part of what’s going on with Bev is I’m a hundred, time is running out.
    I can’t be dicking around.
    I got to tell Emily to get her act together.
    Yeah.
    And you know, that, that in and of itself is a great example of like how different context changes our value calculations, right?
    As we get older, maybe we’re less concerned about whether we say it in exactly the right way or not.
    And we’re concerned with the things that matter the most, like getting to have the time with the people that we love while we have that opportunity.
    So yeah, I think I really appreciated that she did that.
    So I don’t know that I’m well positioned to give advice to the Bev’s of the world because she’s doing great.
    But I think not being afraid of making those suggestions, but when we do it, doing it in a way that people can hear.
    Because like I said, like that defensiveness is such a powerful force also in shaping our openness to change.
    So there’s a lot of research that highlights the endowment effect, the idea that we value things that we think of as ours.
    And that includes things like people demand more money for an object when they’re going to sell it.
    And they think of it as theirs compared to when some outside person says how much they would be willing to pay for it.
    But the same logic happens with our behaviors, like things that we’ve done in the past.
    And we think of as this is what I do, this is me.
    We can then sometimes jump to the conclusion that if I admit that what I did in the past wasn’t optimal, or maybe I did something that was even bad, that can very easily get conflated with like I’m a bad person.
    And then we come up with all kinds of reasons why that isn’t true.
    If somebody made a request like, you never come and spend time with me, like, why don’t you ever call me?
    Those kinds of framings, right?
    If Bev had come to me and said, you never spend any time with me, and you’re a terrible granddaughter, or something that I heard in that way, then it would be much harder for me to figure out like how to shuffle things around to actually hear what she’s saying and do the thing.
    So I guess my advice is like, make those requests, but do it in a way that helps people connect with their bigger picture of goals and values that puts on the table.
    We both want to spend time together, like we love each other, like how can we figure out a way to do that in a way that is actually doing it, right?
    I have four kids, and I’m always telling them, you know, I’m 71 years old, I ain’t gonna last for it, or you better surf with me now.
    And it works most of the time.
    But anyway, well, I mean, you’re making an offer of surfing, right?
    That sounds amazing.
    Who doesn’t want to do that?
    So we’ve been talking about value formation.
    So could you shed some light upon the factors that influence our values?
    There’s parenting, there’s education, there’s culture.
    So if I’m a parent, you’re a parent, you have these two kids, and you’re thinking, how do I instill them a good value system?
    What is it?
    What do parents do?
    What do you want from education?
    What do you want from culture?
    What are the factors here?
    There are so many fields that have thought about that more deeply than neuroscience, right?
    There’s many, many, not only academic fields, but historical traditions and cultural traditions that have thought a lot about how we do that well.
    And so what I would say is that one of the things that we haven’t talked as much about explicitly in this conversation yet is the role of the social relevant system in shaping our value calculations.
    And so we have a social relevant system, which scientists sometimes call our theory of mind system or our mentalizing system, which helps us understand what other people think and feel.
    And paralleling that, social rewards are really powerful in shaping what we think is good and bad and, by extension, what we think of as me and not me.
    And so when we think about how we instill those values in our kids, I think there’s a good amount of evidence that role models matter quite a bit.
    So what we actually do is going to inform what other people think is appropriate, what other people think is likely to be rewarding, and so on.
    And so we serve as those role models for other people.
    Sometimes this gets phrased in terms of how powerfully social influence influences us.
    So when we see what faces other people think are attractive, or when we see what foods other people are eating, or when we see how other people are consuming energy in their homes, or whether they’re voting, those things influence our value calculations to make us more or less likely to make those same choices.
    And then when you flip that around, like the question that you’re asking about how do we shape our kids’ choices, how do we shape our neighbors’ choices, how do we shape the choices of people on our teams at work?
    And so when we make choices that are aligned with our bigger picture goals and values, other people see that, and it makes those choices seem more rewarding in their value calculations as well through this social influence mechanism.
    My grad student, Ray Pei, who’s at Stanford now, ran a study that I thought was really interesting when she was at Penn, that looked at how adolescents and young adults change over time.
    And one thing that some scientists had asserted was that over the course of adolescence and into young adulthood, that people become more and more independent.
    They become more resistant to peer pressure.
    And it’s certainly true that during adolescence, our reward and value systems and our social relevant systems develop very quickly.
    But it’s also true that we’re soaking up the culture that we’re part of.
    And so what Ray’s data suggested was that it’s not just exclusively in all places around the world that teenagers become linearly more and more resistant to peer influence.
    When we look at Western cultures like the U.S. that prize independence and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and becoming this solo, unique individual, that pattern is true.
    But Ray collected a bunch of data in China where there’s more of a cultural focus on interdependence, on our relationships to each other and the relative ways that our communities are constructed and how we interface with each other.
    And there, what she found, that as people developed over the course of adolescence, they showed a different pattern where it seemed more like they were soaking up the values of their culture.
    So by the time they’re in their early 20s, they actually were becoming more interdependent again, like they were susceptible to peer influence and thinking about what other people were thinking and feeling in a way that seemed reflective of that cultural value.
    So what I would say is, as individual parents, we don’t have sole influence.
    Anybody who’s been a parent knows, like we are definitely not the only forces that are shaping our kids, but we do have some role.
    And what we do is going to shape their value calculations.
    In another study that we ran, which was inspired by a parenting dilemma, we found that disrupting function in lateral prefrontal cortex and parts of the brain that typically help us reason, people whose brain function was temporarily down-regulated, temporarily disrupted, were not as able to reason about information that was presented as didactic facts.
    So things like, if you smoke for 30 years, you’ll develop lung cancer.
    But even disrupting that function in these parts of our brain that help us reason, stories allowed people to continue to be able to make use of the information, to be able to generate ideas in response, to reason about those facts when they were bundled as information about people.
    Like, John smoked for 30 years, like John smoked for 30 years and developed lung cancer.
    And they said that was inspired by a parenting dilemma because there’s a lot of accounts of successful use of stories in many cultures around the world.
    So there was an article about how Inuit parents use stories to help their children manage their feelings.
    Anecdotally, like when my kids were little, they were not great at regulating their emotions or reasoning about the situation that was happening.
    Let’s say they were fighting over some toy and I’d be like, what do you think our options are here?
    And they’d just be losing it.
    But if I told a story about two other children that were in a very similar dilemma, they’d be able to pause and think about what these two other people should do.
    Back to your question about, like, how might we shape the values that folks have.
    I think that what we see descriptively, empirically and consistent with how we understand the brain to work is like the things that we do matter, the stories that we tell matter.
    And those kinds of social roots are much more powerful than just a list of facts and figures.
    What do you think?
    How do you think we should do it?
    What’s been successful for you with your four kids?
    Listen, I know what I don’t know.
    At 71, I’ve come to that conclusion.
    And the concept that you can truly control your kids and make them into what you want to make them into is a delusion.
    Let’s not get into that.
    Up next on Remarkable People.
    Like some of the work I’m most excited about right now is with a collaborative team of scientists at Princeton and other universities.
    Where we’ve been scanning two people having real-time conversation in that very bizarre foreign environment.
    And they do it.
    They have deep, wonderful, connective conversations that they enjoy.
    Thank you to all our regular podcast listeners.
    It’s our pleasure and honor to make the show for you.
    If you find our show valuable, please do us a favor and subscribe, rate, and review it.
    Even better, forward it to a friend.
    A big mahalo to you for doing this.
    You’re listening to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki.
    This story is not necessarily a logical follow-on from what we were just talking about.
    But I have to include this story because it is my favorite story of your book.
    And the gist of the story is that when you were giving your kid a reward, I think it was even monetary reward.
    And basically he said, Mom, how about just writing me a note?
    Like, can you please tell that story?
    That’s a great story.
    Yeah.
    I think that is actually related to what we were just talking about a little bit.
    That sometimes we get so focused on one way of thinking about things.
    When the social rewards can be so much more powerful.
    So the story was my kid, I think it was like spelling homework or something that he was supposed to be memorizing various things.
    And back to the temptation bundling thing, I was trying to figure out a way to incentivize him to just do the thing.
    And I offered him a quarter, which at the time he knew he could buy.
    There were these like penny candies at the store near our house to lure kids in and get them to want to buy more stuff at the store.
    And so I had offered him this bribe, basically.
    And he was like, I have another idea.
    If I do all of this, will you make me a certificate that says, good job, Theo, and you can put today’s date on it?
    And basically, like you said, he wanted me to make him a little piece of artwork that he could have.
    Because those kinds of social rewards are really powerful.
    Because I think that kind of identity motivator can be so powerful.
    This is a thing that I did.
    This is something that I can feel proud of.
    And this is something that then like it was important to him that it have his name on it and that it reflect that he had done this thing.
    So, of course, I said, yeah, great.
    I’m happy to do that.
    We’ve made a lot of those kinds of things for guitar homework, playing music.
    And like at the end of the week, if we’ve had a really great week, sometimes I’ll make a little piece of artwork to celebrate that.
    If we had this interview or I had read your book a few decades ago, it would have saved me thousands of dollars.
    But do you think there’s an upper limit on the age when certificates no longer matter?
    Because my youngest is 19.
    Is it too late?
    There’s different things that are like certificates, right?
    I don’t think there’s an upper limit on our wish to connect with other people and to get positive feedback.
    It’s performance appraisal season right now at Penn.
    So that feels really salient to me.
    What kind of feedback are we giving each other?
    And making sure that we’re expressing the appreciation for the things that we do really, truly appreciate.
    Like that’s what that is.
    A certificate of appreciation is something that’s a tangible acknowledgement of something that somebody did that you thought was amazing.
    So yes and no.
    Like I think it gets so much more complicated as people get older.
    And like we talked about, there are so many other peers and sources of influences in a 19-year-old compared to, say, a five-year-old.
    Really?
    So I cannot pass up on this opportunity to ask this question of the Pennsylvania mafia of Duckworth, Milkman, and now Falk.
    I love the work of Bob Cialdini.
    And I have to ask you, from a neuroscientist perspective, what makes a person persuasive and influential?
    Thanks.
    Yeah.
    And I love Bob Cialdini too.
    And I was just like so excited when he gave positive feedback about the book.
    There are so many fundamental principles that he described early on.
    Like I think many people have read Influence, like millions of people have read Cialdini’s classic Influence.
    And so you’re asking me about what makes somebody persuasive.
    One of the things that we see is that people who tend to use their social relevance system more when they’re considering information, that information gets shared more.
    So that kind of ability to engage in perspective taking, I think, is one piece of it.
    And that resonates with some of the principles that Cialdini initially described, like related to the social influence that we were talking about before, where we look around and we see what other people are doing and thinking and that that influences our preferences.
    Of course, there are decades of psychology research and thousands of years going back to Aristotle as well about what makes somebody persuasive, thinking about rhetoric, like logos, ethos, and pathos.
    But when we think about the modern neuroscience research about what makes people persuasive, I think there are a couple of different pieces to that puzzle.
    So one is that activation of our own social relevant systems as we’re considering the ideas can help us frame information in a way that then resonates with others and they go on to share.
    And yet, as we gain more power and status in organizations, we do that less.
    Neuroscience research highlights that people who have more social status sometimes do less of that thinking about what other people are thinking and feeling spontaneously than other people.
    In terms of what makes people want to share information, also when we can connect it to ourselves.
    So in a study where we looked at what made people want to share New York Times headlines and teasers about health and climate relevant topics, when we just asked people to describe the content itself, that was our control condition.
    But when we gave people the chance to say, say why this matters to you or say why this is relevant to you, that increased their motivation to share the information.
    And when we said, talk about why this matters for people in your social network, talk about why this is relevant to people that you know and care about, that also, to a similar degree, increased their willingness to share the information.
    So giving people that opportunity to connect ideas and information with their own identity or with the social relevance of the information for people around them are two kind of straightforward extensions of what we’ve been talking about so far.
    In a sense, the fact that I wanted to highlight the story of making a certificate for your son and the fact that we brought up the story of 100-year-old Grandma Bev, that’s exactly what you said, right?
    Yeah, exactly.
    There’s no better example of social relevance than your son and your grandmother.
    Yeah, and you’re an expert interviewer trying to make these ideas resonate not only with me as a conversation partner, but with other people who might have kids and grandmas as well.
    Yeah, and I often buy jam.
    And when I buy jam, if there’s too many jams to buy, I just buy apricot.
    I used to live about a mile from Drager’s, which is where that study occurred for Stanford.
    So I got to ask you about MRIs because in a sense, I’m reinforcing what you did because in your book, you had a section about MRIs way up front.
    And so my understanding of MRIs is that it measures the blood flow and oxygen to particular places in a person’s brain.
    And first of all, are we talking about the kind of MRI that I’ve had MRIs to check my hearing and they put you in this big thing and the thing is right in front of your face and it’s going ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba.
    And it is the most disturbing, pain-free experience I’ve ever gone through.
    So is that the kind of MRI that neuroscientists use?
    It is.
    The setup that neuroscientists use is a little bit different in that you would have headphones like the ones that I’m wearing right now and ear protection.
    And there would be a screen or goggles that you would wear that would show you stuff like you could see on a laptop screen.
    So if you’re going in to have your hearing checked or if you’re going in to, let’s say, have a structural image of your knee taken, then you’re just going to be looking at the plastic tube that’s around you, right?
    No kidding.
    And so that is a little bit even more bizarre than the experience for the neuroimaging version of it, where you’re in that same kind of machine and it is very noisy and it is a foreign environment.
    And so in some ways, it’s amazing that anything that happens in that environment relates to the behaviors that people have in the real world outside of the scanner, which they do, which is incredible.
    But yeah, we’re setting people up with headphones, goggles, usually a button box or a mouse pad or some kind of way that they can communicate responses for certain kinds of tasks.
    If we’re making judgments about whether something’s me or not me, that’s just a button click, right?
    I show you an image on the screen that says intelligent and then click this button for me, click that button for not me.
    But new technology also is allowing us to do much more naturalistic things like coming up with noise canceling, headphones and microphone technology so that we can have a conversation.
    Like some of the work I’m most excited about right now is with a collaborative team of scientists at Princeton and other universities where we’ve been scanning two people having real-time conversation in that very bizarre foreign environment.
    And they do it.
    They have deep, wonderful, connective conversations that they enjoy.
    Is the assumption that a region of the brain lighting up is actually causing behavior change?
    Is it correlation or causation?
    It depends on the study.
    So for the MRI studies that we do, they’re correlational in that we’re looking at correlations between, well, taking a step back.
    If we’re talking about research on behavior change, there are a bunch of different kinds of studies that have been run.
    My early work in grad school, for example, was fully correlational.
    We looked at what happened within the self-relevance and value systems as people were exposed to coaching messages, encouraging them to do things like wear more sunscreen or reduce their smoking.
    And what we saw was that activation in those brain regions was associated with people changing their behavior in the time periods that followed, say, a week or a month afterwards.
    There are some studies that we’ve done where we push around the brain activity using interventions.
    Like, for example, in a study on defensiveness and values affirmation, we brought people into the lab who are relatively sedentary.
    And we randomly assigned one group of people to get to do a values affirmation where they reflect on their core values, like we talked about earlier.
    Stepping back, zooming out, thinking about those things that really matter to us can make us less defensive and more open to new ideas and information.
    So in that study, we had an experimental group that’s getting this intervention of getting to reflect on the values that matter most to them and a control group that’s reflecting on other values that don’t matter as much to them.
    And then everybody’s seeing the same coaching messages afterwards.
    Things like, according to the American Heart Association, your level of physical inactivity puts you at increased risk for heart disease.
    And there what we see is that the intervention that we’re doing causally changes how much their brains are receptive to this kind of information.
    So we see more activation and self-relevance and value systems when people did the values affirmation before the coaching than when they had the control intervention before the coaching.
    And then we also can link that level of activation to the behavior change that follows using accelerometers, like a Fitbit, basically, that doesn’t give you feedback.
    So there are different kinds of studies, different kinds of experimental designs where we make different kinds of claims about the relationship between the tasks that people are doing, the brain activation that they’re experiencing, and then the behaviors that they do later.
    So my last MRI question is this, that is there any concern that we are drawing so many conclusions about neuroscience based on what I think is a population of experimental subjects that’s undergraduate students trying to get credit or make a few bucks by being a subject?
    Are we taking that limited slice of the population, sticking them in an MRI and drawing generalized conclusions?
    Yeah, for sure.
    And at the beginning of the book on the note on the research, like especially the older MRI research and social neuroscience is limited in the sense that it’s about a very limited swath of the population.
    And there have been many large scale efforts, particularly more recent efforts, like, for example, the Human Connectome Project or ABCD is a developmental large scale collaborative endeavor to try to understand what happens in people’s brains more broadly.
    So colleagues and I have written about this question of what is a representative brain and how can we even find out when many of our early research studies were focused on these primarily Western, relatively well-off, high education samples.
    And so it’s definitely an area that we have to continue to explore and expand, like what happens when we go outside of college student populations.
    And for some kinds of questions, we’re doing a good job of digging deeper into that.
    And for some kinds of questions, we need a lot more research.
    So that is definitely a caveat.
    So now my last question for you, unless you bring up something that makes me ask another question to follow up, is in social media and current marketing theory, so much is dependent on influencers influencing people.
    So what’s the neuroscience take on can influencers truly influence us?
    Sure.
    I think that that goes back to the same thing that we were talking about before, where when people scanned the brains of college students learning about what faces peers thought were more attractive or less attractive or what foods people thought were tasty or what art people think is beautiful.
    Those are relatively anonymous peers, and they exert influence on us by changing our underlying value calculations.
    So when scientists randomly assign some faces or some foods or some pieces of art to get the feedback, your peers liked this more than you did, that doesn’t just change what we say on the surface, that changes our underlying reward value calculations.
    When people are relatively more famous and have a following, I would imagine that would amplify that effect.
    So, yeah, I think they can influence us.
    And so can other people online who are doing and saying all kinds of things that we may or may not want to be shaping who we are and what we value.
    So as soon as I hang up, I am going to create a certificate for my son about how happy I am with his first year in college.
    So again, the name of our guest is Emily Falk, and she has written this book, What We Value.
    And if you want to learn about how people come to value things, it’s recommended reading.
    And thank you very much for being on our podcast.
    Yeah, thank you so much for having me.
    It’s been so great to meet you.
    As you’re biking through Philadelphia, and if you see Katie or Angela, please say hello for us.
    I will.
    What kind of bike do you bike on?
    These days, I use the Indigo Bike Share.
    It’s so convenient.
    The Bike Share in Philadelphia has e-bikes, which makes it really pleasant to ride them.
    And you can ride from one place to another and then leave the bike there.
    And if you want to walk or have a drink at happy hour and then not have to bike home, take the subway, like you can do that.
    So I am a big fan of the Bike Share.
    And are you taking different paths all the time so you see different architecture like you mentioned?
    I do try to do that, yeah.
    You see, Emily, I really did read your book.
    I’m not just working off a Wikipedia entry about you.
    I appreciate you.
    So this is Guy Kawasaki.
    You’ve been listening to the Remarkable People podcast.
    And our remarkable guest today was Emily Falk.
    And she’s the author of this book, What We Value.
    So if you want to learn about what people value and how they came to value things, check that book out.
    And I want to thank the team of Remarkable People who I really value them.
    I value Madison Neismar, producer and co-author Tessa Neismar, our researcher, Jeff See and Shannon Hernandez, our sound design team.
    So that’s the Remarkable People team.
    And I hope you value what we’re doing for you.
    Until next time, amhalo and aloha.
    This is Remarkable People.

    Ever wonder why you choose an orange over an apple, or why your grandmother’s feedback hits differently than a stranger’s opinion? Meet Emily Falk, pioneering neuroscientist and author of What We Value, who reveals how we can transform our relationship with daily decisions by thinking like scientists about our own minds. Emily breaks down three brain systems that drive every choice we make: our value system (the final decision maker), our self-relevance system (what’s “me” vs “not me”), and our social-relevance system (understanding what others think and feel). She shares personal stories about optimizing time with her 100-year-old grandmother and why her son preferred a handwritten certificate over money as a reward. We explore how social media influencers actually rewire our brain’s reward calculations, why stories work better than facts for changing behavior, and how understanding these systems opens pathways to more purposeful choices and stronger influence with others.

    Guy Kawasaki is on a mission to make you remarkable. His Remarkable People podcast features interviews with remarkable people such as Jane Goodall, Marc Benioff, Woz, Kristi Yamaguchi, and Bob Cialdini. Every episode will make you more remarkable.

    With his decades of experience in Silicon Valley as a Venture Capitalist and advisor to the top entrepreneurs in the world, Guy’s questions come from a place of curiosity and passion for technology, start-ups, entrepreneurship, and marketing. If you love society and culture, documentaries, and business podcasts, take a second to follow Remarkable People.

    Listeners of the Remarkable People podcast will learn from some of the most successful people in the world with practical tips and inspiring stories that will help you be more remarkable.

    Episodes of Remarkable People organized by topic: https://bit.ly/rptopology

    Listen to Remarkable People here: **https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guy-kawasakis-remarkable-people/id1483081827**

    Like this show? Please leave us a review — even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally!

    Thank you for your support; it helps the show!

    See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

  • Stop Living Paycheck to Paycheck! 4 Money Experts Break Down How to FINALLY Achieve Financial Freedom (Even If You’re Starting From Zero!)

    What does “financial freedom” mean to you?

    What’s one thing you wish you learned about money earlier?

    In this On Purpose compilation episode, Jay Shetty brings together leading voices in business, money, and mindset—Scott Galloway, Codie Sanchez, Lewis Howes, and Jaspreet Singh—to break down what it really means to build wealth in today’s world.

    This episode explores the gap between surviving and thriving—and why mindset, habits, and practical skills matter just as much (if not more) than how much you earn. Whether you’re in your 20s navigating debt, in your 40s reassessing your financial goals, or simply someone who wants more clarity around money—this conversation is for you.

    You’ll learn how to:

    Shift From a Scarcity Mindset to an Abundance Mindset.

    Use The Skills You Have To Create Financial Freedom.

    Ditch the Lies You’ve Been Told About Money.

    Make Smarter, Long-Term Moves With Money—Without Overwhelm.

    Through personal stories, real strategies, and mindset shifts, Jay and his guests offer a new way to think about wealth—not as a number, but as a lifestyle built on freedom, stability, and purpose.

    Whether you feel stuck, uncertain, or just ready for a smarter approach to money, this episode will give you the mindset and tools to move forward with confidence.

    True wealth isn’t about how much you earn—it’s about how well you build.

    Start building the life you actually want, one smart decision at a time.

    With Love and Gratitude,

    Jay Shetty.

    Join over 750,000 people to receive my most transformative wisdom directly in your inbox every single week with my free newsletter. Subscribe here.

    What We Discuss:

    00:00 Introduction 

    01:16 Pursuit Of Wealth Vs Riches

    08:08 Rewire Your Relationship With Money

    12:04 Be Honest About Your Finances & Save Money

    14:56 Transfer the Skills You Have Into Real World Value

    15:50 How Bad Do You Want It?

    18:28 Want To Quit Your Job But Don’t Know What’s Next?

    21:52 The Mindset Of Financial Abundance

    22:29 Shame Surrounding Making Money

    26:38 Transform How You Think About Money

    28:39 Unlock Wealth With This Mindset Habit

    36:47 How To Contribute Without The Credentials

    39:15 The Wealth Formula That Actually Works

    39:50 The Two Ways To Create Wealth

    42:13 The Scarcity Mindset Holding You Back

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  • Stop Living Paycheck to Paycheck! 4 Money Experts Break Down How to FINALLY Achieve Financial Freedom (Even If You’re Starting From Zero!) Ft. Codie Sanchez And Scott Galloway

    What does “financial freedom” mean to you?

    What’s one thing you wish you learned about money earlier?

    In this On Purpose compilation episode, Jay Shetty brings together leading voices in business, money, and mindset—Scott Galloway, Codie Sanchez, Lewis Howes, and Jaspreet Singh—to break down what it really means to build wealth in today’s world.

    This episode explores the gap between surviving and thriving—and why mindset, habits, and practical skills matter just as much (if not more) than how much you earn. Whether you’re in your 20s navigating debt, in your 40s reassessing your financial goals, or simply someone who wants more clarity around money—this conversation is for you.

    You’ll learn how to:

    Shift From a Scarcity Mindset to an Abundance Mindset.

    Use The Skills You Have To Create Financial Freedom.

    Ditch the Lies You’ve Been Told About Money.

    Make Smarter, Long-Term Moves With Money—Without Overwhelm.

    Through personal stories, real strategies, and mindset shifts, Jay and his guests offer a new way to think about wealth—not as a number, but as a lifestyle built on freedom, stability, and purpose.

    Whether you feel stuck, uncertain, or just ready for a smarter approach to money, this episode will give you the mindset and tools to move forward with confidence.

    True wealth isn’t about how much you earn—it’s about how well you build.

    Start building the life you actually want, one smart decision at a time.

    With Love and Gratitude,

    Jay Shetty.

    Join over 750,000 people to receive my most transformative wisdom directly in your inbox every single week with my free newsletter. Subscribe here.

    What We Discuss:

    00:00 Introduction 

    01:16 Pursuit Of Wealth Vs Riches

    08:08 Rewire Your Relationship With Money

    12:04 Be Honest About Your Finances & Save Money

    14:56 Transfer the Skills You Have Into Real World Value

    15:50 How Bad Do You Want It?

    18:28 Want To Quit Your Job But Don’t Know What’s Next?

    21:52 The Mindset Of Financial Abundance

    22:29 Shame Surrounding Making Money

    26:38 Transform How You Think About Money

    28:39 Unlock Wealth With This Mindset Habit

    36:47 How To Contribute Without The Credentials

    39:15 The Wealth Formula That Actually Works

    39:50 The Two Ways To Create Wealth

    42:13 The Scarcity Mindset Holding You Back

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  • CEO Diaries: The Lessons I Wish I Knew at the Start of My Career…

    In this episode of CEO Diaries, LinkedIn’s Jessica Jensen shares essential B2B marketing strategies every entrepreneur needs. From leveraging AI to mastering LinkedIn for customer acquisition, Jessica reveals how to scale your business and build a winning marketing plan. Don’t miss these insights on transforming your B2B approach.

    Visit – ⁠⁠www.linkedin.com/DOAC⁠⁠

    Follow Jessica Jensen – https://www.linkedin.com/in/jensenjessica/

    Watch The Diary of a CEO Episodes On YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/c/%20TheDiaryOfACEO/videos

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • #233 Outliers: Anna Wintour – Vogue

    AI transcript
    Anna Wintour once looked at photos from a $300,000 fashion shoot
    and killed the entire story without explanation.
    The photographer was Stephen Meisel, now one of fashion’s legends.
    He was so furious, he refused to work with her for years.
    Today, he credits her with making him better.
    This is the Anna Wintour paradox.
    She’s fired assistants for poor clothing choices.
    She’s made editors stand during meetings because sitting wastes time.
    When asked what job she wanted once, she replied, yours.
    And the meeting ended abruptly.
    She got the job anyway.
    For 40 years, people have been predicting her downfall.
    She’s too harsh, too demanding, too unwilling to compromise.
    Meanwhile, she keeps getting promoted.
    At 75, she now runs every magazine at Condé Nast.
    Because Anna figured out something most leaders never learn.
    In a world awash in mediocrity, maintaining standards looks unreasonable.
    But standards are also the only moat that matters.
    And if you want to understand how a British girl who couldn’t type
    built the most bulletproof career in media,
    and what that means for your own ambitions,
    you need to hear this story.
    Welcome to the Knowledge Project.
    I’m your host, Shane Parrish.
    In a world where knowledge is power,
    this podcast is your toolkit for mastering the best of what other people have already figured out.
    Anna Wintour got fired for refusing to compromise her vision.
    The magazine that fired her?
    It’s dead.
    Anna?
    She runs every magazine at Condé Nast, including Vogue at age 75.
    This is the story of how a British girl who couldn’t type or so built the most powerful position in global media,
    then made it impossible for anyone else to take it away by continuously reinventing herself.
    Here’s what a lot of people get wrong about power.
    They think it’s about climbing ladders.
    Anna understood it’s about building the ladder itself.
    While her competitors fought for promotions, she built infrastructure.
    While they protected magazines, she created platforms.
    While they pleased bosses, she made bosses need her.
    The result?
    Four decades at the top of an industry that reinvents itself every five years.
    She survived the death of print, the digital revolution, the great financial crisis,
    the social media transformation, and a pandemic that killed most of her competitors.
    How?
    By mastering the principles that sound simple, but almost nobody executes.
    First, she figured out that being fired for your uncompromising standards is very different than being fired for your performance.
    One is failure.
    The other is intelligence.
    Second, she learned that in creative industries, speed beats perfection because perfection without deadlines is just procrastination with better excuses.
    Third, she discovered that real power comes from making yourself essential to multiple systems simultaneously.
    Even if one fails, you survive.
    This episode draws from Amy O’Dell’s definitive biography to reveal how Anna transformed from fashion assistant to cultural kingmaker.
    But more importantly, it extracts the repeatable lessons and strategies that she used, strategies that you can apply whether you’re building a career, a company, or an empire.
    Her greatest insight wasn’t about fashion.
    It was understanding how to get the best out of herself and others.
    It’s time to listen and learn.
    When Anna was two, her 10-year-old brother, Gerald, died in a cycling accident.
    Her mother installed window bars and never spoke of him again.
    The family moved forward.
    No pictures, no mentions.
    Just forward.
    This is how the Wintors operated.
    Her father, Charles, edited the evening standard with surgical precision.
    Staff writers froze when he passed.
    They called him Chili Charlie, though they would work themselves to exhaustion for his approval.
    Anna never understood the nickname.
    It had nothing to do with the person he was, she’d insist.
    The same words would follow Anna her entire career.
    In a household that prized academic achievement, Anna chose a different education.
    Her siblings devoured political theory at Oxford and Cambridge.
    Anna devoured fashion magazines, eight newspapers every weekend, every fashion publication she could find.
    While her siblings prepared for careers in law and social causes, she studied hemlines and cultural shifts with scholarly intensity.
    I was so desperate to get out in the world and get on with things, she explained about leaving school at 16.
    Her family found her fascination with fashion incomprehensible.
    I’ve always been a joke in my family, Anna later admitted, they’d always thought I’m deeply unserious.
    The irony is that Anna’s unserious pursuit required more discipline than any degree.
    She wasn’t avoiding rigor, but applying it differently.
    Fashion was cultural anthropology, business strategy, and visual communication.
    Full stop.
    Every magazine was a textbook.
    Every trend was data.
    In the face of my brother’s and sister’s academic success, I felt I was rather a failure, she recalled.
    Anna, like so many of our outliers, and perhaps like you yourself, felt overlooked and underestimated.
    She would turn it into rocket fuel.
    While her siblings shaped policy and law, she would shape how power itself presented to the world.
    What her family couldn’t see, because it didn’t look like what they expected, was that Anna was a learning machine.
    This commitment to vacuuming up everything about fashion, it was building mastery.
    Anna’s father, Charles, believed in his daughter.
    When 16-year-old Anna needed to list her career objectives, he didn’t hesitate.
    Well, you write, you want to be the editor of Vogue, of course.
    Not work in fashion, not try magazine.
    Editor of Vogue.
    The apex.
    Named with the same certainty that you’d write your own address.
    Most people aim for realistic.
    The exceptional, name their destination, and work backwards.
    Anna had two advantages most pretend don’t matter.
    Connections and cash.
    Her grandparents’ trust fund paid out $120,000 in today’s money over six years, exactly what her siblings spent on university.
    Anna invested that tuition differently.
    While they bought credentials, she bought time.
    Time to take an unpaid internship.
    Time to say no to the wrong opportunities.
    Time to wait for the right ones.
    Her father made one phone call.
    The Evening Standards fashion editor took Anna to lunch.
    Barbara Griggs expected to mentor an eager teenager.
    Instead, she met someone who already knew exactly where she was going.
    All she wanted from me was some information.
    What she didn’t want at all was any guidance or tips on how to manage her career.
    That certainty at 16?
    Most people don’t even have that at 40.
    Willie Landells at Harper’s Bazaar hired Anna because of her father’s reputation.
    Anyone connected to such a respected newspaper was worth a shot, he figured.
    Here’s where privilege meets performance.
    Yes, her name opened the door.
    But what happened once she walked through?
    That was all Anna.
    The real advantage isn’t the door that opens.
    It’s knowing exactly what to do once you’re inside.
    Harper’s operated on a skeleton crew.
    Three people running the fashion pages.
    No budget for coffee fetchers.
    Everyone did everything.
    I was thrown into my career, frankly, with ignorance.
    I knew nothing, Anna later admitted.
    Perfect.
    While her peers at bigger magazines were filling in expense reports and grabbing coffee,
    Anna was learning the entire business.
    I learned how to go into market and choose clothes.
    I learned how to choose talent.
    I learned how to collaborate.
    I learned how to do a layout.
    I learned how to write a caption.
    She wasn’t afforded the luxury of specializing.
    She had to learn every job in detail.
    Anna had three qualities that mattered.
    Taste, organization, and certainty.
    She never forgot her dress.
    Never lost jewelry.
    Never second-guessed decisions.
    People may not always like it,
    but they knew exactly what she thought and what was expected from them.
    Sounds a lot like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
    Her editor noticed something else.
    Anna could spot talent before it had a name.
    She’d book unknown photographers who’d become famous.
    She’d champion designers others ignored.
    This wasn’t luck.
    Remember those eight newspapers every weekend?
    Those thousands of magazine pages?
    She wasn’t just reading.
    She was building a mental repository.
    When Anna saw a new photographer’s work,
    her brain compared it against millions of images she’d studied.
    When she met a designer,
    she measured them against every trend she’d ever tracked.
    Pattern recognition can’t be taught.
    It can only be earned through obsessive accumulation of high-quality inputs.
    Most people want to trust their gut without feeding it the right things first.
    Then came the moment that defined her aesthetic forever.
    Christmas, 1971.
    Anna styled a shot mixing a $2,000 white fox coat with a $29 wicker chair.
    Diamonds with democracy.
    Luxury with accessibility.
    Everyone else segregated high and low.
    Anna smashed them together.
    The insight she had was that aspiration without accessibility is just snobbery.
    Accessibility without aspiration is just a commodity.
    The magic lives in the tension between the two.
    That high-low mix would become her signature and eventually fashion’s default language.
    But first she had to survive long enough to impose it on the world.
    Anna’s assistant, Claire Hastings,
    got a front row seat to what extreme standards actually look like in practice.
    Anna wasn’t warm.
    She didn’t explain much.
    But Hastings noticed something.
    Anna was obsessively invested in her success.
    Not through pep talks, but through the intolerance for mediocrity.
    Every borrowed item needed to be returned perfect.
    Down to the original tissue paper.
    A missing button.
    Unacceptable.
    A wrinkled collar.
    Career ending.
    This wasn’t about the clothes.
    It was about proving you could be trusted with the details before being trusted with the decisions.
    Outliers share unreasonable standards.
    Standards aren’t what you accept from others.
    They’re what you demand from yourself when no one’s watching.
    Then there was the lunch table incident.
    Eight people ordered wine and steaks.
    Anna, just a yogurt, please.
    The table froze.
    Everyone was suddenly questioning their orders.
    She wasn’t performing discipline.
    She’d internalized it so completely that normal behavior looked like an excuse by comparison.
    Her steak had to be perfectly rare.
    She’d send it back three times and then eat two bites.
    Not because she was being difficult, but accepting good enough in small things trains you to accept it in big things.
    Steve Jobs sent back sushi at his own birthday party.
    Elon sleeps on the floor of the factory.
    Outliers don’t have work-life balance.
    They have standards that follow them everywhere.
    The talent scout in Anna was brutal.
    Photographers lined up for go-sees.
    Bad work?
    She’d look away mid-sentence.
    Thank you.
    No feedback.
    No false hope.
    Just cutthroat rejection.
    But when she spotted genius, total commitment.
    One photographer showed up and staff described him as some madman with boxes of shoes.
    Anna saw what others missed, gave him his first major endorsement.
    James Wedge, a hat maker trying photography, Anna booked him repeatedly until he had a career.
    By 1974, Anna was doing half the major shoots, maintaining standards that made everyone else look casual.
    When they fired her superior for someone with writing background, Anna expected the promotion.
    The lesson she was about to learn, having the higher standards doesn’t guarantee recognition.
    It only guarantees you’ll deserve it.
    Are you crushing your bills?
    Defeating your monthly payments.
    Sounds like you’re at the top of your financial game.
    Rise to it with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card.
    The credit card that rewards your good financial habits.
    Earn points for paying your credit card bill in full and on time every month.
    Level up from bill payer to reward slayer.
    Terms and conditions apply.
    Hit pause on whatever you’re listening to and hit play on your next adventure.
    Stay three nights this summer at Best Western and get $50 off a future stay.
    Life’s the trip.
    Make the most of it at Best Western.
    Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions.
    They gave Anna’s promotion to Min Hogg, a textiles expert who wrote features.
    Anna had been doing the actual job.
    Min had been writing about fabrics.
    Anna got a new title.
    Deputy fashion editor.
    Corporate translation.
    Please don’t quit.
    Here’s where character reveals itself.
    Anna didn’t complain.
    She didn’t confront.
    She didn’t leak to gossip columns.
    Instead, she let her work create unbearable contrast.
    Every shoot she produced made Min’s inadequacy more visible.
    Min would have realized pretty soon that Anna didn’t think much of her work, Hastings observed.
    When you maintain exceptional standards, you don’t need to attack mediocrity.
    It exposes itself.
    After months of this passive war, Anna pulled Hastings aside.
    It’s outrageous I haven’t been made fashion editor.
    I’m resigning.
    Are you going to stay?
    No, said Hastings, who quit in solidarity despite having no backup plan.
    Study that moment for a sec.
    Anna did not negotiate.
    She didn’t threaten.
    She didn’t give them time to counteroffer.
    She just left.
    While others might not have believed in her as much as she believed in herself, it didn’t matter.
    She was going to bet on herself and she was going to go all in.
    Five years of vacuuming up every detail of the fashion business from inside.
    Building relationships.
    Developing her aesthetic.
    Proving results.
    When the system failed to reward merit, she didn’t try to fix the system.
    She rejected it.
    With passport in hand, she aimed for New York, where talent mattered more than tenure, where
    hunger beat hierarchy, and where results spoke louder than words.
    The girl who couldn’t type was about to teach Manhattan how power really works.
    New York, 1975.
    25, no job.
    Just confidence in herself.
    I felt quite isolated growing up in England, with it being such a class-driven culture, Anna
    explained.
    Everyone in New York is from somewhere else, and that creates a very positive force.
    America promised meritocracy.
    Anna would test that promise.
    Harper’s hired her as junior editor.
    Day one, she broke every rule of the American fashion authority.
    The industry equation was simple.
    Drama equals competence.
    Polly Mellon at Vogue cried of her photos she loved.
    Gloria Monker at Bazaar threw shoes at assistance.
    Emotion was currency.
    Anna stayed quiet.
    She watched.
    She processed.
    It was a smart move.
    A special projects editor observed the new hire during a photo shoot in Jamaica and wondered,
    have we hired the wrong person?
    Anna’s job was to command the set with authority, but she just stayed in the background.
    This confused magazine’s leadership, but not the crew, who preferred working with someone
    who didn’t feel the need to interfere with every detail.
    For them, she was a breath of fresh air.
    Years later, she would say, I’m a big believer in hiring talented people and giving them the
    freedom to work.
    People work better when they have responsibility.
    There are two kinds of power, the kind that announces itself and the kind that doesn’t
    need to.
    And as we’ll see, Anna actually has a bit of both.
    Her real revolution wasn’t style, it was substance.
    Her assistant discovered something unprecedented.
    She’d really had no qualms about being completely focused to the point of being very abrupt, seemingly
    rude because she just didn’t have the time.
    She was on her path to what she needed to do, period, the end.
    No small talk, no office politics, just work.
    In an industry built on relationships and feelings, Anna introduced something radical, pure efficiency.
    She wasn’t cold, she was clear.
    Every interaction had a purpose or it didn’t happen.
    In addressing her tough reputation much later, she would say, if one comes across sometimes
    as being cold or brusque, it’s simply because I’m striving for the best.
    Most people organize their entire lives around being liked by nearly everyone.
    They don’t want to offend anyone.
    Outliers have the courage to be disliked.
    The British girl who couldn’t break through England’s class ceiling was about to crack
    America’s code, not by playing the game better, but by refusing to play at all.
    Anna was devoted to work.
    In an office, people kind of clown around and they take breaks and they gossip.
    And she never did any of that.
    She wasn’t in it for fun and games.
    She was in it to work.
    While colleagues treated jobs as social clubs with deadlines, Anna treated the office like
    a laboratory every day, impeccably dressed, not vanity, but strategy in fashion.
    Your appearance is your argument.
    Her boss, Tony Missoula wanted traditional shoots, advertiser friendly, text heavy, safe.
    Anna wanted revolution.
    When they clashed, she didn’t argue, at least not directly.
    Instead, she would meet photographers in the lobby, select only the best shots, hide the rest.
    When Tony asked for alternatives, Anna would shrug.
    Sorry, there aren’t any more.
    Tony’s choice, accept her vision or pay for expensive reshoots.
    Budgets were tight.
    Anna knew this.
    Anna won.
    When Tony berated her, Anna stayed silent.
    A colleague noticed.
    She knew she could go on to other things.
    She knew damn well she wanted to run Vogue.
    Harper’s wasn’t the end of the line, but more importantly, she also didn’t treat it as a
    stepping stone either.
    She was present.
    She was all in.
    She gave it her all.
    While everyone else fought daily battles, Anna was mapping the entire war.
    They were playing for Friday.
    She was playing for Vogue.
    And then Paris happened.
    Anna returned with photos that broke every rule.
    When Tony later fired Anna for being too European, he was essentially firing her for having a point
    of view.
    Years later, after Anna conquered fashion, Tony would deny that he ever happened.
    History, as they say, is written by the winners.
    At the time, I didn’t know what he meant, Anna reflected.
    But in retrospect, I think he meant I was obstinate, that I wouldn’t take direction.
    Years later, Anna conquered fashion and Tony denied firing her.
    Anna would reflect on this years later and say everyone should get sacked at least once in their
    career because perfection doesn’t exist.
    The lesson, getting fired for your standards is different than getting fired for your performance.
    One is failure.
    The other is reconnaissance.
    Despite the setback, she was confident in her vision and confident in herself.
    Anna took a job at Viva magazine.
    The owner?
    The Penthouse publisher.
    A porn king trying to make feminist fashion content.
    Stores hid Viva behind the counters next to the adult magazines.
    Anna didn’t care.
    I needed a job and Viva offered me an enormous amount of freedom.
    The editor, Alma Moore, saw Anna clearly.
    This woman knows what she wants, but she’s going to be difficult.
    She hired her anyway.
    Smart leaders know that difficult people often produce the best work in the right environment.
    At Viva, Anna spent hours studying French L, Italian Vogue.
    No one questioned her vision.
    No committees, no interference, just pure freedom.
    The receptionist observed she was always her own person,
    didn’t really listen to any structure because, whether she was or not, she was the boss.
    Here’s what everyone missed.
    Working at a disreputable place meant no one was watching.
    With no one watching, Anna could do anything.
    She could experiment.
    She could push the limits.
    She could play.
    She’d promise boutiques front page placement for lending clothes,
    promise advertisers their pieces would be shot.
    The clothes kept coming.
    The ads kept selling.
    While her peers fought for assistant positions at respectable magazines,
    Anna was running her own fashion laboratory at a publication funded by porn.
    Sometimes the worst address can have the best classroom.
    At Viva, Anna developed her signature aesthetic.
    Photographs that made you want to become the person wearing the clothes.
    Models in country settings with chunky sweaters and inexplicably bows and arrows.
    It shouldn’t have worked, but it did.
    She pushed farther than anyone dared.
    One spread featured S&M-inspired photography.
    It was way out there, her colleagues said.
    Nobody did anything like that.
    When you’re already at a controversial magazine, you can push farther than anyone thought possible.
    She was playing.
    Her process was military precise, though.
    Everything was planned in advance.
    Rapid fire fittings.
    The model put on an outfit.
    Anna says, okay, next.
    No deliberation.
    No committee.
    Just decisions.
    Then came the test.
    Her publisher wanted to save money by using penthouse centerfolds as fashion models.
    Anna’s response?
    No.
    She walked away.
    Cheryl Rickson, one of those models, understood.
    Working with centerfolds didn’t serve her ambition.
    We all know she wanted to be fashion editor of Vogue.
    Standards aren’t standards if they’re negotiable.
    They’re absolute or they’re not standards.
    The miracle?
    People started paying attention.
    Alexander Lieberman, who ran Condé Nast and controlled Vogue, mentioned to Vogue’s editor,
    I love Vogue.
    I noticed you have an Englishwoman on the masthead.
    For three years, Anna transformed Vogue’s fashion pages into the required reading at Vogue and Harper’s.
    The porn magazine nobody respected was teaching the fashion establishment how to shoot.
    Excellence is excellence.
    The platform is just context.
    November 17th, 1978, Viva announces it’s closing tomorrow.
    Anna starts sobbing, shocking colleagues who thought she didn’t care.
    She wasn’t crying for the magazine.
    She was mourning the loss of her laboratory, the first place she had had total control.
    For 18 months, Anna disappeared into what fashion people called the wilderness,
    jet-setting with her boyfriend from Paris to Jamaica to the south of France,
    her only real break from work since age 16.
    But Ambition doesn’t like vacations.
    When she returned to New York in 1980, Savvy magazine called the magazine for executive women.
    Anna needed work.
    She took it.
    The problem was immediate.
    Savvy appealed to women who’d fought through the 70s to make partner at law firms,
    women who hid their femininity like a liability.
    But Anna had built her entire career making femininity a superpower.
    Editor Judith Daniels wanted real people instead of models, practical office clothes, reasonable prices.
    Anna nodded in meetings and then shot exactly what she wanted.
    Anna was very strong-minded and she just did whatever she wanted, the executive editor recalled.
    Daniels tried to fire her, but Anna had learned something.
    How to talk her way out of trouble.
    She bought some time to job hunt while getting paid.
    Then came humiliation.
    March 18th, 1981.
    Anna pitches interview magazine, Andy Warhol’s glamorous publication, an idea she spent three months developing.
    The editor looked at it for one second and said,
    Anna cries right there in his office.
    And then she leaves for her next appointment.
    When you believe in yourself completely, rejection is data, not a verdict.
    That persistence paid off when Laurie Jones at New York Magazine called in early 1981.
    Jones was desperate to fill a fashion editor position that required someone to basically run a one-person fashion department
    attending shows, selecting clothes, booking photographers, managing shoots, do everything, deliver weekly.
    Anna shows up to the interview with storyboards, complete with Polaroids, layouts, fully realized ideas, not hopes, but plans.
    Anna, this is fabulous.
    I like every one of these story ideas, Jones said.
    She rushed editor-in-chief Edward Cosner.
    Ed, this woman is amazing.
    We’re all going to be working for her someday.
    Cosner laughed and hired her.
    Most people prepare for interviews by thinking about answers.
    Outliers show up with solutions.
    It’s the same with cold emails today.
    Don’t tell someone how you would solve their problems.
    If you want to get noticed, just solve their problem.
    At New York Magazine, Anna finally had a budget to match ambition.
    Want to shoot a $20,000 sable coat?
    Approved.
    Need the best photographers to compete with the times?
    Done.
    They recognized talent and they gave her room and an environment to execute.
    Her first story, Summer Dresses, on a tilted Manhattan rooftop,
    making the Empire State Building appear to dance behind the models.
    Every fashion editor in the city was shooting straight.
    Anna was tilting reality.
    But her standards remained brutal.
    When one of her assistants styled her for shoot with photographer Stephen Meisel,
    Anna killed it without explanation.
    Didn’t matter was her assistant’s big break.
    Didn’t matter Meisel was talented.
    Standards were standards.
    And Anna’s standards to nearly everyone appeared unreasonable.
    And also, just like Steve Jobs, that made everyone work harder and be better
    and pulled out the best version of themselves.
    Meisel was so enraged, he would refuse to work with Anna for years.
    He’d become one of fashion’s greatest photographers.
    Anna didn’t care.
    She wasn’t there to collect friends.
    She was there to win.
    This reminds me so much of Michael Jordan, who said in the last dance,
    I pulled people along when they didn’t want to be pulled.
    I challenged people when they didn’t want to be challenged.
    And I earned that right because my teammates who came after me didn’t endure all the things
    that I endured.
    Once you joined the team, you lived at a certain standard that I played the game,
    and I wasn’t going to take anything less.
    Now, if that meant I had to go in there and get on you a bit, then I did that.
    You ask all my teammates, the one thing about Michael Jordan was he never asked me to do
    something that he didn’t do.
    When people see this, they’re going to say, well, he wasn’t really a nice guy.
    He may have been a tyrant.
    Well, that’s you, because you never won anything.
    I wanted to win, but I wanted them to win and be a part of that as well.
    Look, I don’t have to do this.
    I’m only doing it because it’s who I am.
    That’s how I played the game.
    That was my mentality.
    If you don’t want to play that way, don’t play that way.
    Jordan could have easily been talking about Anna.
    At New York Magazine, Anna wasn’t just editing fashion.
    She was playing at the highest standard.
    And if you wanted to be a part of it, you needed to bring your A-game every day.
    No exceptions.
    Polly Mellon at Vogue had been watching Anna since London.
    She thought Vogue was getting boring and arranged a meeting with editor-in-chief Grace Mirabella.
    Mirabella called Anna and asked what position she wanted at Vogue.
    Anna’s answer?
    Yours.
    The meeting ended immediately.
    Most people hide their ambitions and Anna just announced hers and let the world adjust.
    But the real power wasn’t Mirabella.
    It was Alexander Lieberman, Conde Nast’s editorial director.
    Art director by day, wielding massive steel sculptures on weekends, he collected talent like
    others collected art.
    In August of 1983, Anna publishes a story where 12 artists create paintings inspired by fashion.
    Lieberman sees it and recognizes a kindred spirit, someone who understood fashion as high art,
    not just commerce.
    He invites Anna to his Connecticut estate.
    She shows up in what he called a wonderful, simple, gray tunic.
    Not trying to impress, just being precisely herself.
    I was absolutely enchanted with her, Lieberman would say.
    His problem?
    Mirabella was successfully running Vogue.
    So his solution was to create a fake job, creative director.
    A made-up title that made Anna second on the masthead with deliberately vague responsibilities.
    And I took it.
    She wasn’t a number two person, but she also understood chess.
    She would change tactics, but not her dream.
    For three years, she was officially Mirabella’s deputy.
    Actually, she was Lieberman’s protege.
    Learning the operation, building the relationships, waiting, preparing.
    Mirabella later wrote that Anna would sit in meetings, shaking her head, obviously disagreeing
    with everything I said.
    Anna wasn’t being insubordinate.
    She was being inevitable.
    In 1985, British Vogue editor Beatrix Miller stepped down after 21 years.
    Anna was offered the job.
    She’s pregnant.
    She hesitates a little bit, and then she takes it.
    She needs to prove that she can run something.
    Anna walks into British Vogue and detonates, fires most of the staff, demands shorter skirts,
    injects an energy that had been missing for decades.
    The British press nicknamed her Nuclear Winter.
    She doesn’t care.
    Circulation climbs, profits soar, British designers get discovered.
    The first rule of transformation, you can’t renovate a house with people still living in
    it.
    Two years later, she’s proven her point.
    When House and Garden’s editorship opens in New York, Anna takes it, not because she wants
    to edit home decor, because it’s her ticket back to America and closer to Vogue.
    At House and Garden, she renames it HG.
    Anna adds fashion shoots to a decorating magazine, replaces anonymous rich people’s homes with
    celebrity features.
    Readers revolt, advertisers flee, subscription cancellations require a dedicated phone line.
    She would do things that people have never done before and that alienated some people, a
    feature’s editor observed.
    But Anna wasn’t trying to save House and Garden.
    She was auditioning for Cy Newhouse and Alexander Lieberman.
    The magazine was her performance space.
    Years later, every decor magazine would copy what Anna tried at HG, voyeuristic glimpses into
    celebrity homes instead of furniture catalogs.
    She was right, just a little bit early.
    But by then, she’d have bigger things to transform.
    Just as the criticism at HG was starting to die down, Grace Mirabella’s 37 years at Vogue
    were ending.
    She just didn’t know it.
    Newhouse and Lieberman had decided by summer of 1988.
    They kept Anna in endless planning meetings while she pretended everything was normal at HG.
    June 28th, 1988.
    Mirabella’s husband calls her.
    He just saw gossip colonist Liz Smith on television.
    Anna Wintour will replace his wife as editor-in-chief of Vogue.
    Mirabella goes to Lieberman’s office.
    He’s waiting.
    Grace, he says, I’m afraid it’s true.
    37 years, dismissed via gossip column.
    Power transitions are never elegant.
    They’re either swift or sloppy.
    Never both.
    Anna was prepared.
    She spent three years studying Vogue’s operations from the inside, learning its weaknesses, building
    her network.
    While Mirabella finished her final two weeks, Anna summoned all 120 Vogue staff to her HG office.
    One by one, brief interviews.
    Three days later, 90 people remained.
    When you finally get power, use it immediately.
    Hesitation invites resistance.
    17 years after her father wrote editor of Vogue on that career form, after getting fired for
    being too European, after crying in Andy Warhol’s office, after transforming two other magazines,
    Anna had the job she’d wanted since she was 16.
    Now the real work could begin.
    Make memories, not medical bills, with travel insurance from BC’s health experts, Pacific
    Blue Cross.
    Their affordable travel plans offer protection from unexpected travel costs like medical emergencies,
    trip cancellation fees, baggage issues, and more.
    Plus, kids of all families are covered for free, and there’s no deductible in the event
    of a claim.
    Buy worry-free travel insurance in minutes.
    Visit pac.bluecross.ca.
    Spring is here, and you can now get almost anything you need delivered with Uber Eats.
    What do we mean by almost?
    You can’t get a well-groomed lawn delivered, but you can get chicken parmesan delivered.
    Sunshine?
    No.
    Some wine?
    Yes.
    Get almost, almost anything delivered with Uber Eats.
    Order now.
    Alcohol and Select Markets.
    See app for details.
    Anna didn’t come to Vogue to run it.
    She came to rebuild it.
    Her management style honed over the years, and now unleashed at Vogue was calculated to create
    a specific type of workspace that produced exceptional work.
    If you’ve seen the movie The Devil Wears Prada, you might be familiar with what comes next.
    She installed glass offices so she could see everything happening, fired people with startling
    frequency, and developed what became known as the look, a daily assessment of what every
    staff member’s outfit from shoes to hair.
    One assistant described it perfectly.
    She would stare at your shoes and work her way up.
    She was creating an environment where every detail mattered, because she understood that
    in fashion media, there is no separation between how you look and how you work.
    If you look sloppy, your work will eventually look sloppy.
    If your office operates with casual standards, your editorial standards will eventually become
    casual.
    She fired constantly.
    In the creative business, one person operating at 60% can bring an entire team down to their
    level.
    Excellence requires difficult choices.
    Some saw tyranny.
    Anna saw physics.
    She was creating environmental pressure that made mediocrity impossible to hide.
    When every detail of your appearance matters, every detail of your work starts mattering too.
    Most leaders try to change behavior.
    Anna changed the environment.
    The behavior followed.
    But the real revolution went deeper.
    Fashion magazines operated like art museums.
    Slow, contemplative, precocious.
    Anna brought newspaper urgency to an industry that thought deadlines were just suggestions.
    She wasn’t just changing Vogue.
    She was changing what a fashion magazine could be.
    The devil wasn’t in the details.
    The devil was ignoring the details.
    Anna came from newspaper blood.
    Remember, her father, Charles, ran the Evening Standard.
    She understood what fashion editors didn’t.
    Speed creates quality under pressure.
    Marabella had run Vogue like a museum, everything written down, committees for committees.
    Anna walked in and saw a bureaucracy where there should be velocity.
    First, she killed comfort.
    Out went beige walls and butter-colored chairs.
    In came white walls, glass offices, and metal seats.
    Comfort breeds complacency, and discomfort breeds decision.
    Her meeting revolution was pure newspaper.
    You walk in, you stand, you ask, you leave.
    The saying internally was, you get two minutes.
    The second is a courtesy.
    The chairs in her office were for decoration, not sitting.
    No sitting meant no settling.
    No chit-chat meant no waste.
    Every interaction became a transaction.
    The glass walls weren’t about surveillance.
    They were about accessibility.
    Anna could catch an editor’s eye and assign a task without leaving her desk.
    One editor realized Anna called on her constantly simply because her office was in the sightline.
    The lesson here is clear.
    Architecture is destiny.
    Design your environment to eliminate friction between thought and action.
    Then came Anna’s masterstroke, AWOC.
    Her initials plus OK became a verb.
    Is that AWOC’d yet?
    Nothing.
    Not a caption, not a photo, not a comma moved without her approval.
    This wasn’t micromanagement.
    It was standards transformation.
    Every AWOC taught editors what excellence looked like.
    The infamous clothing run-throughs that took hours under Mirabella.
    Anna did them in minutes.
    Yes.
    No.
    Yes.
    No.
    No.
    Yes.
    Goodbye.
    No explanations.
    No committees.
    Just decisions.
    When you explain every decision, people just learn to argue.
    When you just decide, they learn to anticipate.
    The fear of rejection made editors sharper.
    They learned to pre-filter, to think like Anna before presenting.
    She wasn’t reviewing work.
    She was programming their brains.
    Anna was anything but hands-off.
    She ran on founder mode, staying until midnight the first three months, personally reviewing
    every single layout.
    But unlike Mirabella, who hid in her office, Anna spent half her time with designers, telling
    them what to add to collections.
    Every hiring revealed her system.
    Anna personally screened everyone.
    One candidate was rejected for wearing matching pearls.
    Two matchy-matchy.
    Another almost didn’t get past HR for being overweight.
    They negotiated Anna, giving her at least two and a half minutes for this one, and that
    one got hired.
    She was building a machine where mediocrity had no place to hide.
    Glass walls meant no privacy.
    Speed meant no procrastination.
    Personal approval meant no excuses.
    A lot of people manage outputs.
    Anna managed inputs, control the environment, and excellence becomes inevitable.
    The British girl who couldn’t type had figured out something profound.
    In creative industries, velocity often beats perfection, because perfection without deadlines
    is just procrastination with a better wardrobe.
    What Anna did was change Vogue’s cover strategy.
    Anna puts a $10,000 Christian LaCroix jacket with $50 guest jeans on her first Vogue cover.
    The printer literally called the check.
    Surely someone had made an error.
    No error, just strategy.
    To understand why this matter, you need to understand fashion’s unwritten law.
    Luxury doesn’t mix with mass market.
    It’s like putting a Ferrari engine in a Toyota.
    It violates the hierarchy that lets luxury charge luxury prices.
    Anna broke that law on purpose.
    She understood something the industry didn’t.
    People don’t dress in just Prada or just Gap.
    They mix.
    She was documenting reality while everyone else was protecting mythology.
    This is how disruption often works.
    You don’t invent new behavior.
    You legitimize behavior that already exists.
    But the Madonna cover reveals her deeper insight.
    A businessman on a plane tells Anna he loves Vogue because it’s so elegant, so classic.
    Katherine Hepburn, Grace Kelly.
    It would never be Madonna.
    Most editors would take this as market research.
    Our readers want elegance, not controversy.
    Anna heard it differently.
    If everyone agrees Vogue would never do something, that’s exactly what would get attention.
    Anna would go on to say the fact that that very nice man that I sat next to on the plane thought
    that it would be completely wrong to put Madonna on the cover and completely out of keeping with
    the tradition of Vogue being this very classically correct publication pushed me to break the rules
    and had people talking about us in a way that was culturally relevant, important, and controversial,
    all of which you need to do from time to time.
    Context matters here.
    Madonna in 1989 had just released Like a Prayer, Burning Crosses, romantic scenes with a black saint.
    Pepsi pulled her sponsorship.
    Religious groups wanted boycotts.
    She represented everything Vogue readers theoretically rejected.
    Anna put her on the May cover.
    You need to be culturally relevant, important, and controversial from time to time, she later
    explained.
    The numbers told the story.
    200,000 more copies sold than previous May.
    But that’s not the lesson.
    The real lesson is about information asymmetry.
    When everyone knows something would never work, they stop testing it.
    That creates an opportunity.
    Within five years, every fashion magazine featured celebrities.
    Anna didn’t predict the future.
    She created it by doing what nobody else would test.
    Sometimes the best strategy isn’t finding what people want, it’s showing them what they didn’t
    know they were allowed to want.
    The early 1990s belonged to supermodels, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss.
    They commanded massive fees and magazine covers.
    Anna killed them off.
    It wasn’t personal, it was business.
    Here’s the lesson she understood.
    Models offer only one story, beauty.
    Celebrities, however, offer infinite stories.
    Marriage, divorce, scandals, politics.
    Every life event becomes content.
    The insight, people don’t buy aspirational images, they buy aspirational narratives.
    Think about the math.
    A supermodel gives you 12 beautiful covers a year.
    A celebrity gives you 12 chapters of an ongoing drama.
    Which do you think keeps readers coming back?
    But Anna also saw something deeper.
    Supermodels influenced how people wanted to look.
    Celebrities influenced how people wanted to live.
    Fashion wasn’t just about clothes anymore, it was about lifestyle.
    The proof came at every red carpet.
    Who are you wearing became the question, not what are you wearing?
    Who?
    Fashion became a character in every celebrity story.
    One of the most remarkable things I discovered researching Anna was that she didn’t just change
    magazine covers.
    She changed how culture talks about clothing.
    The supermodel era ended not because models became less beautiful.
    It ended because beauty without story is just a wallpaper.
    And nobody subscribes to wallpaper.
    Anna was busy.
    Busier than she’d ever been.
    And she developed an assistant system that reveals something profound about how power operates in elite
    institutions.
    She would employ up to three assistants at any given time.
    Each with specific roles that collectively insulated her from administrative tasks that were not
    directly related to editorial decision making.
    This system worked like this.
    First assistant, schedule and communications.
    Second assistant, homes, screenings, and her dogs.
    Third, errands, tickets, and custom orders to designers for Anna’s personal clothing.
    While this may appear as an extravagance, it was math.
    Most executives spend 40% of their time on logistics.
    Anna spent zero.
    100% of her mental energy was spent on work, while an army of other assistants handled everything
    else.
    Think about how powerful that is.
    The system was brutal.
    Emails without subject lines.
    Just commands.
    Coffee, please.
    Get me Tom Ford.
    No niceties.
    No unnecessary words.
    Assistants arrived at 730 to prepare for her entrance when orders would rain down without
    pause.
    There’s an elevator story that captures it perfectly.
    Rumors said Anna banned others from riding with her, but the truth is people avoided the
    elevator because she’d immediately start issuing orders they’d need to write down.
    Impossible while moving.
    One assistant would meet her at her car to collect the AW bag, her papers from home.
    Not because Anna was lazy, because she understood every second carrying bags was a second not spent
    She wouldn’t learn assistants’ names until they proved they could last.
    Most burned out in weeks.
    Here’s the paradox.
    The survivors became fanatically loyal.
    Why?
    They weren’t just filing expenses.
    They were watching Anna negotiate with billionaires.
    They saw how she made split-second decisions that moved markets.
    They built relationships with every power player who walked through Vogue.
    One former assistant summed it up really nicely.
    The demands weren’t personal.
    When you’re affecting billion-dollar industries, there’s no room for casual execution.
    The lesson isn’t about having three assistants.
    It’s about understanding the value of your time.
    It’s about holding the people around you to the same unreasonable standards you hold yourself
    to.
    Anna calculated that her hour was worth more than three people’s days.
    She was right.
    While competitors managed calendars, she managed culture.
    Focus isn’t about doing one thing.
    It’s about doing only the things that you can do.
    By 1997, Anna had been editor-in-chief for nearly a decade, and Vogue was performing spectacularly.
    The magazine had its biggest March issue since 1990, with ad pages up 5.9%.
    The September issue that year weighed 4.3 pounds and was packed with 734 pages, mostly advertisements.
    It was the biggest issue in nine years and represented complete market dominance over its competitors.
    One problem?
    Anna’s publisher, Ron Gagliotti, wants more.
    Gagliotti was hired to maximize revenue, and Anna’s refusal to feature advertisers’ clothes
    in editorial spreads was making him very angry.
    His logic was simple.
    If you need a white shirt for a shoot, why not use Ann Klein’s?
    They’re paying us hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    Anna’s response was simple.
    If it’s ugly, it’s not in Vogue.
    This is the eternal war in creative businesses.
    The money people want compliance.
    The creative people want control.
    Gagliotti escalated to sigh Newhouse.
    They prepared a list of editors who could replace Anna.
    Then they invited her to lunch.
    The ultimatum was blunt.
    Start featuring advertisers’ products or find another job.
    Newhouse’s exact words, I suggest you follow the money.
    Most editors would choose one of two paths.
    Cave completely, turn Vogue into a catalog, or fight and lose, maintain your principles, and
    get fired.
    Anna chose door number three.
    She’d photograph advertisers’ clothes, but only pieces that met her standards.
    Yes to commerce, but she kept the veto.
    The genius here was she made herself indispensable to both sides.
    Advertisers got more coverage than ever, but only Anna could guarantee it would elevate their
    brand and not embarrass it.
    She started taking advertiser meetings, building relationships that transcended the transactions.
    The result?
    Vogue kept its credibility.
    Advertisers got prestige.
    Anna got more powerful.
    The lesson?
    When forced to choose between X and Y, don’t.
    Find the narrow path where both can win.
    Follow the money wasn’t a default.
    It was data.
    Anna learned to speak money fluently while thinking in art.
    That’s how you survive four decades at the top.
    In 1994, just one year after the introduction of the very first web browser to seamlessly
    integrate text and images, many in the publishing world were still pretending the internet didn’t
    exist.
    Anna wasn’t, but she also wasn’t particularly tech-oriented at this point.
    When a new feature editor sent an email to the entire Vogue staff in 1994 to introduce
    himself, he received a fax from Anna in Europe that said,
    But even as Anna dismissed email as impersonal, she was obsessively asking Condé Nast’s digital
    team, when can Vogue go online?
    It’s starting to get embarrassing that Vogue.com is not online.
    Why aren’t we online?
    Here’s what drove Anna’s urgency.
    The entire purpose of fashion is to be a reflection of the times, as one digital executive explained.
    Anna understood that a fashion magazine that felt antiquated or out of date would lose its
    cultural authority, authority that Anna had been building for six years now at Vogue,
    with no intention of stopping.
    While other editors saw the internet as a threat to their business model, Anna saw it as an
    opportunity to increase Vogue’s influence.
    The contradiction reveals her genius.
    Email was internal.
    The website was relevance.
    Email was internal.
    The website was external relevance.
    When Vogue.com eventually launched in 1998, Anna made a radical decision.
    Post every runway show.
    Make it searchable.
    Make it free.
    The fashion world revolted.
    Fashion’s entire business model depended on scarcity.
    Invitation-only shows.
    90-day embargoes.
    Magazines charging premiums for exclusive access.
    Anna was about to give it all away.
    Half the designers said no.
    Many of the fashion houses didn’t even have internet yet.
    Anna published anyway.
    The tagline at the time captured her strategy.
    Before it’s in Vogue, it’s on Vogue.com.
    Her own team worried about this diminished role for print.
    Anna saw it differently.
    It makes our brand more modern.
    The first rule of disruption is if you’re going to get cannibalized, it’s better to eat yourself.
    But Anna didn’t just go online.
    She pushed it farther.
    She orchestrated what may have been High Fashion’s first live stream for Chanel’s resort show in 2000.
    Clothes hit the runway, immediately photographed, instantly purchasable, the see-now, buy-now concept that Burberry would invent 13 years later.
    A partnership with Neiman Marcus represented another breakthrough that wouldn’t become standard until years later.
    Anna negotiated a deal where Condé Nast got a cut of all clothing purchases driven by the Vogue website, essentially inventing fashion e-commerce affiliate marketing.
    After that first season, designers discovered the hidden benefit.
    Digital slideshows replaced expensive lookbooks.
    Buyers could see collections instantly.
    Anna hadn’t just moved fashion online.
    She’d made Vogue indispensable to the entire supply chain.
    This was remarkable.
    And although it’s obvious in hindsight, it wasn’t at the time.
    She took a wild risk to use her name and reputation to push a very unwilling fashion industry into the digital age.
    The parallel to Andy Grove here really stands out.
    In episode 229, when memory chips got commoditized, Intel pivoted to microprocessors.
    When print got commoditized, Anna pivoted to platform.
    Her competitors spent the next decade protecting traditional revenue.
    By then, Anna owned the entire infrastructure that everyone needed to use.
    Women who wouldn’t use email built fashion’s digital future because she understood something her competitors didn’t.
    The question isn’t whether your industry will be disrupted.
    It’s whether you’ll be the one doing the disruption.
    Let’s fast forward to 1999.
    Anna has been running Vogue for 11 years.
    Revenues are up to $149 million.
    Anna’s professional life, perfect.
    Her personal life, imploding.
    The divorce from David Schaefer should have been a disaster.
    Instead, it became rocket fuel.
    New York Magazine was preparing a hit piece about Anna’s breakups.
    Her husband and her deputy editor both leaving.
    When they asked for a cover photo, her former colleague, Jordan Shapes, gave her the playbook.
    We all know it’s going to be a piece of shit article, but a fabulous cover.
    That’s all people take away anyway.
    In a visual culture, perception beats reality.
    Control the image, and you control the narrative.
    No one understood this better than her.
    A colleague noticed something remarkable.
    She was remarkably good at compartmentalizing, which bothered some staff.
    Bothered them?
    It made her unstoppable.
    While others would have crumbled, Anna separated her personal pain from a professional persona,
    like removing one outfit and putting on another.
    The divorce wasn’t a distraction.
    It was rocket fuel.
    Work became her outlet.
    Avoid a crisis as you can, but perform through it if you can’t.
    The woman who emerged from this divorce would be different.
    No personal crisis could derail her professional momentum.
    She was done building a magazine.
    It was time to build an empire.
    With her personal life stabilized, Anna turned her attention to something more ambitious than
    just editing a magazine.
    She wanted to build what she called Big Vogue, a media empire that would extend her influence
    across multiple platforms and demographics.
    The strategy was simple.
    Anna understood that power in media comes from controlling an ecosystem.
    Teen Vogue launched in 2003, followed by Men’s Vogue in 2005, and Vogue Living shortly thereafter.
    Each publication served a different audience, but all carried the Vogue brand, and more
    importantly, all reported to Anna.
    Her philosophy for managing this empire was characteristically direct.
    She described editing multiple magazines like planning a dinner party.
    You need to have the pretty girl, the controversy, and something reassuring.
    By controlling the different elements of the cultural conversation, Anna ensured that the
    Vogue brand touched every significant demographic.
    Teen Vogue was chess, though, not checkers.
    Hook the readers at 15 and keep them for life.
    Plus, it became Anna’s digital laboratory, testing strategies too risky for the mothership.
    Men’s Vogue expanded her range.
    Main Vogue only featured people Anna wanted to celebrate.
    Men’s Vogue could criticize.
    Same brand, different roles.
    But the real genius was the talent pipeline.
    These magazines became Anna’s farm system.
    Train editors at Teen Vogue.
    Promote them to the best Vogue.
    Her influence multiplied through protégés across the industry.
    The portfolio approach had another benefit, resilience.
    When Men’s Vogue folded in 2008, Anna shrugged.
    She had other pieces on the board.
    While competitors protected single titles, Anna built a portfolio that could absorb risk.
    Nothing revealed Anna’s approach to power more clearly than how she handled major crises.
    Her response to September 11th became legendary within Condé Nast and established a template she would follow for decades.
    On September 12th, 2001, while much of New York was still reeling from the 9-11 attacks, Anna went to work.
    Not because she always went to work, but because she had calculated that normalcy was a form of resilience.
    As the message trickled down to her staff, the best thing to do was keep going.
    If Vogue stopped, fashion stopped.
    If the world stopped, the terrorists would have won.
    Anna’s bias toward action revealed itself.
    She assigned a spring fashion preview celebrating the season 9-11 had canceled.
    While others froze, Vogue published.
    But 2008 revealed her true genius.
    While other executives partied through 2007, Anna and publisher Tom Florio were studying currency rates.
    The euro-dollar shift was crushing European luxury brands.
    They saw the canary in the coal mine.
    They built three scenarios, belt tightening, major cuts, or catastrophe mode.
    When Bear Stearns collapsed, Florio warned other Condé Nast publishers.
    They laughed.
    Anna and Tom executed their plan.
    The result?
    Condé Nast ad pages dropped 30% in 2009, wiping out nearly $1 billion in revenue.
    Vogue was one of only two magazines that stayed profitable.
    Famously, after the 2008 crisis, Anna said internally,
    we will not participate in the recession.
    The pattern never changed.
    Position yourself for multiple possible futures.
    Prepare to the extent possible.
    Execute.
    No emotion.
    Whether 9-11, 2008, or any crisis between,
    Anna’s approach was identical.
    See it coming.
    Build options.
    Stay focused.
    The 2008 lesson went deeper.
    When budgets shrink, profitable divisions survive.
    Unprofitable ones don’t.
    No matter how prestigious they are.
    Anna understood in good times, excellence matters.
    In bad times, only profit matters.
    Crises don’t build character.
    It reveals who was positioned and who was pretending.
    As Warren Buffett says,
    Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s swimming naked.
    By keeping Vogue profitable when others bled,
    Anna made herself indispensable.
    While others around her were losing their job,
    no one could come at the queen.
    The digital revolution should have killed Anna’s tenure at Vogue.
    Instead, she weaponized it.
    Vogue.com traffic grew from 1 million to 10 million monthly visitors.
    Same principles, new medium, impeccable visuals, exclusive access, celebrity partnerships.
    But Teen Vogue revealed her real genius.
    In December 2016, Teen Vogue publishes,
    Donald Trump is gaslighting America.
    The media world gasps.
    A fashion magazine doing some serious political commentary.
    Anna’s response, more please.
    She understood,
    Controversy drives engagement.
    Engagement drives revenue.
    Teen Vogue’s traffic exploded from 2 million to 12 million.
    Print subscribers tripled.
    The lesson,
    Your sub-brands can take risks your main brand can’t.
    Use them as laboratories.
    Anna became obsessed with Metrix.
    The woman who once cared only about aesthetics now lived for traffic reports.
    The 2015 Met Gala coverage set records she’d chase after every year.
    She found the holy grail,
    modernizing her greatest creation while expanding its reach.
    Even her Go Ask Anna YouTube series in 2018 was strategic,
    answering random questions.
    No, humanizing her brand while maintaining mystique.
    Digital transformation isn’t about abandoning what made you successful.
    It’s about translating it into a new medium.
    Anna didn’t become a different person online.
    She became a more measurable version of herself.
    And in digital, what can’t be measured can’t be monetized.
    By 2008, Anna discovered fashion was just her vehicle.
    Power was the destination.
    She backed Obama, but not with just checks.
    She created events mixing fashion, entertainment, and political elites.
    Anna positioned herself as the essential connector.
    First principle of real power is don’t join other people’s networks.
    Create your own and be the one everything flows through.
    When ambassador rumors swirled, Anna stayed silent.
    The speculation alone increased her value.
    Why can firm or deny when mystery multiplies the leverage?
    She didn’t get the ambassadorship.
    She got something better.
    Artistic director of all of Condé Nast.
    Not just Vogue.
    Everything.
    But the Met Gala has been her masterpiece of power.
    In 1999, Anna inherits a stuffy charity dinner.
    Wealthy New Yorkers writing checks, patting themselves on the back.
    By 2018, she’s running a $12 million cultural phenomenon that determines who matters in America.
    The transformation reveals everything.
    Anna didn’t just change an event.
    She created a new currency.
    Met Gala invitations became more valuable than money.
    They signaled cultural relevance that no amount of wealth could buy.
    The Met Gala looks like a party.
    Look closer.
    It’s a machine for manufacturing power.
    Anna controls the three levers that matter.
    First, the guest list.
    Reality stars with millions of followers can’t buy their way in.
    By saying no to money, Anna created a currency more valuable than money.
    Second, the seating chart.
    Anna places emerging designers next to billionaire investors.
    Models next to beauty executives.
    She deliberately separates couples, forcing new connections.
    Anna wanted people to meet other people, a former planner revealed.
    That’s where a lot of business came from.
    Third, the content engine.
    One night generates 12 months of coverage.
    The anticipation, the arrivals, the analysis.
    When Lady Gaga spent 16 minutes changing outfits on the steps, that wasn’t spontaneous.
    That was strategy.
    Vogue.com breaks traffic records every Met Gala Monday.
    Ad sales follow eyeballs, the event pays for itself through the content it creates.
    Watch how the flywheel spins.
    Anna’s Vogue coverage can make a designer’s career.
    So when she calls, everyone says yes.
    Their presence makes the event matter.
    The coverage reinforces Vogue’s authority.
    That authority attracts next year’s guests.
    Each turn makes the wheel spin faster.
    The $12 million for the Met is impressive, but it’s a distraction from the real genius.
    Anna made herself essential to three industries at once.
    Fashion needs her platform.
    Museums need her funding.
    Entertainment needs her validation.
    If magazines vanish tomorrow, Anna would still control the room where culture gets decided.
    She didn’t just build a better magazine.
    She built better infrastructure.
    In 2020, the fashion industry was devastated by the pandemic.
    Conde Nast was bleeding money.
    Critics were circling Anna like vultures.
    Everyone predicted her fall.
    Instead, she got promoted.
    December 2020, Anna becomes chief content officer of everything.
    Every Conde Nast magazine.
    Every country.
    The New Yorker to Vanity Fair to GQ all report to the girl who couldn’t type.
    Looking back from today, that promotion wasn’t a reward.
    It was recognition of reality.
    Anna had built something that transcended job titles.
    Her power rested on three pillars.
    Anticipation.
    She saw the celebrity shift before supermodels peaked.
    Pushed digital while competitors protected print.
    And built platforms while others guarded pages.
    Adaptation.
    Her methods never changed.
    Control the environment.
    Maintain standards.
    Move fast.
    But her tactics evolved constantly.
    Indispensability.
    The magic formula.
    Even when controversial, she stayed profitable.
    Even when criticized, she delivered results.
    Revenue plus relevance equals irreplaceable.
    At 75, Anna controls more than she did at 40.
    Not because she’s holding on, but because she’s built the infrastructure everyone needs.
    Here’s what most people miss.
    Anna didn’t achieve power.
    She architected it.
    The 16-year-old who wrote Editor of Vogue on that form, she got that job in 1988.
    But that was just the beginning.
    She spent the next 40 years building something that couldn’t be taken away.
    Jobs can be lost.
    Titles can be stripped.
    But when you become the platform your entire industry runs on, when you control the room
    where culture gets decided, when three different multi-billion dollar industries need you to
    function, that’s not a career.
    That’s architecture.
    The fashion world that Anna entered in 1975 is dead.
    The magazines, the business model, the culture, all transformed beyond recognition.
    Yet Anna didn’t just survive each transformation.
    She caused them.
    True power isn’t controlling what exists today.
    It’s building what controls tomorrow.
    And tomorrow, like every tomorrow for 40 years, still belongs to Anna Wintour.
    Wow.
    I want to talk about some of my reflections from reading and learning about Anna and what a
    force this woman is.
    There’s a couple of things that didn’t make the episode that I really want to emphasize
    here, but I also want to point out one of her secrets is that she’s direct and clear.
    She is kind, but not nice.
    Kind people will tell you something a nice person won’t.
    She will give you the feedback.
    You know exactly what she’s thinking.
    There are no mixed messages.
    And I think a large part of her success is due to the fact that she’s decisive and clear.
    And I think it gets rid of the wrong people very quickly and the right people love it.
    Okay.
    I want to talk about one of the things that gets talked about a lot online with Anna, which
    is her daily routine.
    It’s practically become internet folklore among productivity geeks.
    She wakes up around five.
    She plays an hour of tennis at dawn.
    And then consumes a whole bunch of news, British US newspapers by breakfast by 8am.
    She’s in the office perfectly coiffured with her Starbucks cappuccino, which is her version
    of breakfast in hand.
    I got that from the 80 questions video.
    But her routine’s most viral element is perhaps her wardrobe strategy.
    I have a wardrobe full of print dresses.
    So every morning I just go to one of my print dresses of choice and put it on.
    It makes decision making a lot easier.
    That simple hack from the queen of fashion revealed in her Go Ask Anna video series is cited as a
    brilliant way to just figure out what to wear in the morning.
    I mean, think of Steve Jobs.
    He always wore the same thing.
    And Anna Wintour is effectively doing the same thing.
    I think it’s brilliant.
    You don’t have to think too much.
    You can buy a whole bunch of them.
    You know what size fits.
    It’s great.
    I also want to say something a bit underrated with Anna.
    She cultivated immense loyalty by genuinely helping other peoples.
    It’s a reminder that behind what appears from the outside to be cold, there’s incredible acts
    of generosity in her.
    There’s softer antidotes.
    You know, they might not trend on TikTok, but they circulate in professional communities.
    For instance, you know, one story that sticks in mind that didn’t make this was she helped
    designer John Galliano get his career back on track.
    She gave countless people who didn’t have a name at the time, photographers and assistants,
    a shot.
    And, you know, I want to think about this for a second.
    She might come across as cold as some, but despite what you think from the Devil Wears Prada,
    my sources tell me she was never insulting.
    She valued clarity, speed, and directness.
    She gave direct and honest feedback.
    She’s kind, but not always nice.
    She says people work so much better when feedback is fast, direct, and honest, and they know where
    they are.
    Nobody works well when the atmosphere feels slow and lazy.
    Okay, I want to get into some of the lessons and, you know, some of the recurring themes that
    we see over and over again.
    The first is a taste for salt water.
    Anna spent five years at Harper’s on a skeleton crew of three people doing everything from market
    visits to layouts to captions.
    There was no coffee fetching or filling.
    She was just thrown in completely over her head.
    She said, I was thrown into my career, frankly, with ignorance.
    I knew nothing.
    She treated this grinding apprenticeship as education, not exploitation.
    Most people would have complained or stopped trying.
    That’s why most people don’t get the education that Anna got.
    Two, unreasonable standards.
    Anna returned every borrowed item with original tissue paper intact.
    She’d send steaks back three times for being insufficiently rare, then only eat two bites.
    At Vogue, she instituted the look, a daily assessment of every employee’s appearance from
    shoes to hair.
    Her AWOC system meant nothing, not even a comma, moved without her approval.
    Excellence is a tyrant you invite in.
    Once it moves in, mediocrity has no place to hide.
    Three, high agency.
    When passed over for fashion editor at Harper’s, despite doing the job’s work, Anna didn’t complain
    or negotiate.
    She resigned immediately, taking her assistant with her.
    She moved to New York without a job lined up, betting everything on her vision.
    The system won’t fix itself for you.
    When merit meets politics, choose exodus over argument.
    Four, burn the boats.
    At Viva, the porn-funded fashion magazine, Anna had a total creative freedom but zero prestige.
    Rather than job hunting for something respectable, she used the disreputable platform to develop
    her aesthetic without interference.
    She studied European fashion magazines while working at a magazine sold behind the counter.
    Sometimes the worst address is the best classroom.
    Embrace opportunities others are too proud to take.
    Five, bias towards action.
    Anna’s meeting revolution at Vogue.
    Walk in, stand, ask, leave.
    You get two minutes.
    The second is a courtesy.
    The clothing run-throughs that took hours under Mirabella, Anna did them in minutes.
    Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
    Goodbye.
    No explanations, no committees, just decisions.
    When people avoided her in the elevator, it wasn’t because she banned them, it was because
    she’d immediately start issuing orders they’d need to write down.
    Decisiveness is a muscle.
    The more you use it, the faster you move.
    Velocity matters.
    Six, outthink, don’t just outwork.
    When her boss at Harper’s wanted advertiser-friendly spreads, Anna would meet photographers in the lobby,
    select only the best shots, and claim no others existed.
    She forced him to choose between her vision and expensive reshoots, and she won every time.
    Don’t fight the system.
    Architect situations where the system has to choose you.
    Seven, don’t care what they think.
    Putting Madonna on Vogue’s cover in 1989 horrified fashion purists.
    The woman had just released a video burning crosses.
    Pepsi had polled her sponsorship.
    Religious groups wanted boycotts.
    Anna did it anyway because a businessman on a plane said Vogue would never feature Madonna.
    The issue sold 200,000 extra copies.
    When everyone agrees something will never work, that’s precisely when they stopped testing it.
    Consensus kills innovation.
    Eight, positioning is leverage.
    Anna accepted a made-up creative director role at Vogue, officially Mirabella’s deputy,
    but in reality Lieberman’s protege.
    It wasn’t the job she wanted, but it got her foot in the door.
    For three years, she learned the operation while appearing to be number two.
    She’d sit in a meeting, shaking her head, obviously disagreeing with Mirabella,
    playing a longer game than office politics.
    When Mirabella was fired, Anna was ready.
    When you know what you want, the strongest form of positioning is preparation.
    Nine, be a talent collector.
    Anna championed unknown photographers who became legends and built a three-assistant system that
    created Fashion Magazine’s most powerful alumni network.
    Her protégés run fashion globally.
    They learned by watching her negotiate with billionaires and shape culture daily.
    Your legacy isn’t just what you build, it’s who you build with.
    And you can’t buy good company.
    Ten, overmatch.
    Anna didn’t just go into detail.
    She forced the entire industry online in 1988, making Vogue.com the platform every designer needed.
    She didn’t compete with other magazines.
    She built the infrastructure they’d have to use.
    The Met Gala wasn’t improved.
    It was weaponized into a $12 million annual event of cultural dominance where she controls
    the guest list, seating charts, and cultural relevance itself.
    Don’t play fair games.
    Build the game itself and then charge admission.
    11, win by not losing.
    During the 2008 financial crisis, while other Condé Nast magazines bled out, Vogue remained
    profitable.
    Anna and her publisher had watched Eurodollar exchange rates, built three scenarios, and executed
    their plan while others partied.
    When Bear Stearns collapsed, they were ready.
    They were well-positioned.
    In a crisis, profitable divisions survive.
    Unprofitable ones get cut.
    Excellence matters in good times.
    Profits matter in both.
    When you combine the two, you succeed no matter what.
    What a force.
    Anna, oh my God, I can’t even say enough about her.
    This woman is so amazing and incredible, and I hope you learned as much as I did listening
    to this episode, and I would love to have her as a guest on the podcast, so if you’re listening
    to this and you know how to get in touch with her, I would love to interview her and sit
    down and talk about her and Vogue, and man, what an amazing woman and an amazing story.
    Thanks for listening and learning with us, and be sure to sign up for my free weekly newsletter
    at fs.blog slash newsletter.
    I hope you enjoyed my reflections at the end of this episode, and that’s normally reserved
    for members, but with this outlier series, I wanted to make them available to everyone.
    The Farnham Street website is where you can get more info on our membership program, which
    includes access to episode transcripts, reflections for all episodes, my updated repository featuring
    highlights from the books used in this series, and more. Plus, be sure to follow myself and
    Farnham Street on X, Instagram, and LinkedIn. If you like what we’re doing here, leaving a rating
    and review would mean the world. And if you really like us, sharing with a friend is the best way to
    grow this special series. Until next time.

    The job was editor-in-chief. The goal was to become the platform. And she did. 

    Once she made it to the top, she didn’t just edit Vogue. She reinvented the power structures beneath it. This episode unpacks how a British girl who couldn’t type built the most bulletproof career in media, survived five decades of disruption, and made herself indispensable to fashion, politics, and culture.  

    You’ll hear how she weaponized speed over perfection, fired half the Vogue staff in three days, and turned a porn-funded job into a fashion laboratory. Why she said “Your job” when asked what she wanted. Why she put Madonna on the cover at the peak of a scandal. Why standards—not popularity—are her real moat. It’s not about fashion. It’s about building systems no one can take from you.  

    Most people aim for realistic. Anna Wintour named her destination—Editor of Vogue—at sixteen, then built a ladder no one else could climb. 

    This episode is for informational purposes only and is based on Amy Odell’s Anna: The Biography. Simon & Schuster, 2022. 

    Check out highlights from these books in our repository, and find key lessons from Wintour here—⁠⁠⁠⁠https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/outliers-anna-wintour/

    Approximate timestamps: Subject to variation due to dynamically inserted ads:

    (03:48 ) PART 1: A Childhood Defined: The Girl Who Couldn’t Type
    (05:50) Anna Chooses Her Path
    (07:28) Learning by Drowning
    (09:46) The Tyranny of Standards
    (12:01) When Merit Meets Reality

    (13:44) PART 2: Conquering New York: The Quiet Revolutionary
    (16:05) Quiet Focus
    (18:10) The Best Worst Job
    (19:29) A Reputation from Nothing
    (21:00) In the Wilderness
    (22:39) The Preparation Advantage
    (25:40) The Audacity Play
    (27:22) The London Interlude
    (28:44) The Execution

    (30:19) PART 3: Vogue’s Transformation: The Devil in the Details
    (32:04) Speed as Strategy
    (34:56) The Celebrity Revolution
    (38:44) The Three-Assistant Solution
    (41:07) Balancing Art and Commerce
    (43:11) Cannibalizing Yourself First

    (46:46) PART 4: Anna’s Empire: The Power of Compartmentalization
    (48:05) The Empire Strategy
    (49:44) Crisis as Opportunity
    (51:58) The Digital Reinvention
    (53:27) The Currency of Influence
    (54:36) The Machine Anna Built
    (56:11) The Persistence of Power

    (58:23) Reflections, afterthoughts, and lessons

    Upgrade—If you want to hear my thoughts and reflections at the end of all episodes, join our membership: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠fs.blog/membership⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and get your own private feed.

    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 on X at: ⁠x.com/ShaneAParrish

  • Turn Your Idea Into a Working App With One Prompt (Live Demo)

    AI transcript
    Welcome to the Next Wave Podcast.
    I’m Matt Wolfe, and today’s guest is building what he calls the last piece of software the
    world will ever need.
    Anton OCK is the CEO of Lovable, a platform that lets anyone build fully working software
    just by describing what they want.
    No code, no dev team, just your ideas and AI.
    In this episode, we talk about what that means for the future of software development, entrepreneurship,
    and even AGI.
    Anton shows off a live demo of Lovable, shares how kids and solo founders are launching real
    businesses in just hours, and breaks down how this tech could level the playing field for
    creators everywhere.
    If you’re building anything, tools, products, businesses, this conversation might just change
    how you think about the whole process.
    So let’s dive in with Anton from Lovable.
    This episode is brought to you by HubSpot Inbound 2025, a three-day experience at the heart
    of San Francisco’s AI and startup scene, happening September 3rd through the 5th.
    With speakers like Amy Poehler, Marquise Brownlee, and Dario Amadei, you’ll get tactical breakout
    sessions, product reveals, and networking with the people shaping the future of business.
    Don’t miss out.
    Visit inbound.com forward slash register to get your ticket today.
    Hey, Anton.
    Thanks for joining us on the show.
    How are you doing today?
    It’s great to see you, Matt.
    I’m good.
    Yeah.
    Awesome.
    Well, I don’t want to waste your time.
    Let’s just jump right into it.
    And let’s talk about Lovable.
    So I’m curious a little bit about your backstory.
    What were you doing before Lovable?
    How did Lovable come about?
    Why did you decide to build it?
    Let’s get the background a little bit.
    Yeah, sure.
    I go back to my childhood.
    No, but I was always a kid that picked apart technology and wanted to understand everything.
    And then I found this way to create games when I was like 12 and got books in the library
    to learn how to code.
    I decided to study at university, as everyone did then.
    And then I thought, computer science?
    No, I’m going to go into physics.
    Because that was where all the people who became the most generalist, both in academia and industry,
    studied here, where I’m from, in Stockholm, Sweden.
    That was amazing.
    I took way too many courses in machine learning, computer science, AI, and math.
    And then what I realized, I was at this place where they discovered the Higgs boson,
    the particle accelerator in CERN, for three months.
    I was like, amazing.
    There’s 10,000 super smart people here.
    But they’re trying to solve a problem that is very hard to solve.
    It’s very inelastic.
    You don’t have any real-world impact.
    And I’m obsessed about impact and making things happen.
    Then I understood, I’m not going to be staying on this track in academia.
    So I went into building things in the industry.
    And for the last 10 years, I’ve been building AI products.
    And I’ve been specifically building great teams that build AI products together
    at two of the very, very well-known AI startups here from Stockholm.
    And then a bit more than one and a half years ago, I decided to start a new company,
    which is what I’m building now.
    So with Lovable, can you sort of give the elevator pitch?
    Like when somebody asks you, what is Lovable?
    How do you describe it to them?
    It’s a way to take as the prompt an explanation of an application.
    And then AI will build that application for you like it was a software engineer and deploy it.
    I think it was you.
    I think you said at one point that you’re trying to build the last piece of software.
    What does that mean?
    Yeah, sure.
    I can thank you to what spurred us starting the company, Lovable.
    Look, this was early 2023 that it was clear to me like this next generation of AI can actually start reason.
    And it’s specifically good at writing code.
    If you put it into an advanced system where the reasoning engine is used to take the decision on behalf of a human,
    then you’re going to be able to build a completely new type of interface to build software products.
    And this AI is going to help developers become more productive.
    But the more interesting unlock here is for the 99% who never learned how to code.
    I’m not sure about you, Matt, but you’ve probably been frustrated by the difficulty finding great software engineers.
    And so I was like my mom and everyone just asked me, how do I find a great software engineer?
    So this new interface, you talk to an AI and it builds your product.
    You build it together with the AI.
    It’s going to let the 99% go from zero to one and enable anyone to,
    unlock the creativity to build great companies, to just create things, create great software,
    and to build businesses on top of it.
    So that’s what we’re set out to do.
    And the last piece of software is this.
    It’s a platform to build software products.
    And it’s going to make sure that humans don’t need the right code anymore if they don’t want to.
    So with that in mind, what do you think the role of a software developer or software engineer, what does that look like in the future?
    I talk to people who ask me this, like, Anton, what should I do?
    I’m an engineer.
    And I think engineers should just always put on the hat of and seeing themselves as the person who translates a real-world problem into a technical solution.
    And that means different things depending on what type of engineer you are, and it changes over time what you do.
    And using AI is, of course, going to be a larger, larger part of that translation.
    And now I think what happens when you have AI that makes it faster to create software is that there’s going to be just much more software,
    and there’s going to be more iteration cycles to make each piece of software very, very good.
    And the jargon for that in some tech companies is to make them lovable.
    So I think that’s actually the end outcome of lowering the barriers through AI and new platforms like ours,
    making it very, very easy to take an idea, write it in, and you get a full working product.
    Right, right. I almost see it as like, you know, like with a symphony, right?
    It’s almost like taking the people that are playing the instruments and moving them to the conductor, right?
    Now everybody can be the conductor, and you’re telling the various instruments what to do now.
    Instead of actually being the player of the instrument, you get to become the conductor.
    Yeah, it hooks people.
    Yeah, and one thing I’ve loved about this sort of new era of like AI software development is I don’t need to necessarily
    build a SaaS product that I’m going out and trying to like raise capital on or, you know, sell it on a monthly fee or anything like that.
    I can find like little tiny bottlenecks in my business, little like holes of things that I’m like,
    all right, that is kind of a pain in the butt.
    I don’t like doing that every day.
    Let me build a little software for myself that just fixes that for me.
    I can just build it for myself and not have to worry about like trying to build a business around it.
    And I think that is one of the coolest things that software like this enables, in my opinion.
    Yeah, the personal software trend is also very big.
    It’s getting larger.
    Yeah, yeah.
    So let’s go ahead and maybe jump into Lovable and give a quick demo, show people what it’s sort of capable of.
    I know you have a project that you kind of already started working on that we can jump in and tweak with.
    Sure.
    I prepared a project right ahead of a call previously.
    And what I wanted to have in that call, I was going to be asking questions.
    And you can use it to ask me questions.
    It’s like a webinar Q&A app.
    So anyone can answer and input the question.
    And I’ll just focus first on what happened as I built this out.
    So I basically went to Lovable, which looks like this.
    And I put in the first prompt, which was mock-up, the webinar question app.
    So then I didn’t want it to be a fully working product where it works across devices, just a mock-up.
    And then Lovable went ahead and said like, okay, hey, I’m going to build this for you.
    I’m going to choose simple design.
    And then it tells me like, if I want to get back in functionality, you can use the Superbase to connect.
    And it lets me understand that better.
    So then what happened was I got this mock-up UI you can see here, but it doesn’t sync across devices.
    So if someone opens this website in one place and answers a question, I don’t see it.
    So I just asked AI, how do I do that?
    And that’s a big part of like, we’re working with AI.
    If you don’t understand, you can just ask.
    Yeah.
    One thing that I like about what you’re showing here too, is that it actually recommended Superbase, right?
    Like if you’re trying to develop a software and you don’t need necessarily know much about software,
    you might not know that you need this to be connected to a backend database.
    So it’s cool to me that it’s going, hey, we could build this for you, but you also need a database.
    Here’s what we recommend.
    Yeah.
    This is a native integration at this point, because most startups and simple projects that are successful,
    they start on Superbase.
    So it’s a very popular choice.
    And what it does is it told me like, okay, yeah, you need to just connect Superbase.
    And then what I did, I went up here and said, yeah, connect to a new project.
    Now it’s connected.
    And then it tells me, okay, now you can go ahead and add AI functionality, login, or just store data.
    So I said, add real-time sync as it explained.
    And then it says, I’m going to create the data table, like the place to store the questions.
    And I’ll change some in the UI to handle it, to connect to the database.
    And then I had to approve, like, okay, run this code.
    I got an error.
    And then I said, okay, I fixed error.
    And then it worked.
    And so that’s what happened when I built this.
    And if I just open this application, I can send it to you as well.
    It’s Q&A dot lovable dot app.
    If you go in, you ask me a question, you can try to do it live.
    Then it should synchronize real-time across any number of devices, which is a really useful,
    simple tool.
    And no one has to log in.
    It’s just like, you go to the, you scan the QR code.
    I ask for a QR code afterwards.
    And then I can always pick up this app if I want to have like a Q&A session with a company
    or with someone I’m presenting to.
    So let me see.
    I’ve actually got it open on my screen right now.
    Let me see.
    If I, let’s see, what should I ask?
    Let’s see.
    Nothing too personal.
    Okay.
    Let’s see.
    What is the coolest app you’ve seen built with lovable?
    Let’s see.
    Submit question.
    Okay.
    That worked.
    There it is.
    So I actually typed that on my screen,
    but you’re seeing it on Anton’s screen if you’re watching the video.
    Yeah.
    Awesome.
    So that’s a good question.
    What’s the coolest app I’ve seen built?
    I think I saw a better version of ChatGPT,
    which I liked.
    Like it had more keyboard shortcuts and way to like customize each thread.
    I really like that because a lot of the innovation right now actually happens on the AI intersection,
    the user interface, like the user experience side.
    And that was one of the really cool apps I saw.
    It’s also fun to see that people are launching,
    we built a lovable app for people to launch the things they built.
    Oh, cool.
    Almost got like a Reddit style upvote.
    And then you get like for projects that I’ve been around,
    there’s lots of people getting users through this.
    And I haven’t seen all of them,
    but there’s so many cool things that people build.
    That was just like me demoing how lovable works.
    What I could do next is to just show you like how the AI handles a change.
    But if I want something to happen instantly,
    because the AI is not instant,
    I could show you that something you can do here is that you can edit text and style
    by just selecting it similar to a website editor.
    So you don’t need to wait for the AI to make little sort of changes.
    Yeah, for small changes, exactly.
    Exactly, yeah.
    But let me first ask you something.
    Do you have any style you really like to see this in?
    I mean, I typically like my websites in dark mode,
    and I always like to use like blues and purples,
    like my background.
    So we will say something about like,
    and a cool hacker font and just make it look better.
    And what I sometimes do is I just attach a screenshot to the AI.
    I pasted it in here for it to see like,
    how does it look now?
    Let’s make it look more beautiful.
    But this is just how lovable works.
    You can do some more things,
    like you can customize knowledge.
    if you wanted to remember,
    like always use this way of connecting to an API
    that you wanted to use for some type of integration.
    If you want your engineer colleague to edit it,
    it’s all kept two-way synchronized for them to go to GitHub,
    which is like how engineers build software to date.
    Right.
    And you can invite collaborators,
    so I could send you this link,
    and then you’ll be able to edit this project if you want to.
    That’s most of it.
    We’re waiting for the AI to run the change here.
    And the last part that a lot of people are missing do here,
    now is to add the custom domain,
    which you might want to host.
    You might want to buy a website domain for your project.
    And I think you can even do that inside of Lovable now.
    So does Lovable host the whole thing,
    and then you’re just sort of pointing your domain name to Lovable?
    Yeah.
    I can just select the domain here.
    I don’t think this domain is free.
    I’ll pay inside of this flow.
    And then it’s all hosted.
    Like we’re using state-of-the-art hosting infrastructure.
    Yeah, but I imagine if somebody did want to export all the code
    and bring it over to their own host or whatever,
    they could do that as well.
    Yeah.
    So it’s all super flexible.
    You can do anything that a human engineer would like to do with this setup.
    Oh, nice.
    Here’s our new style.
    I’m not sure I love it, but…
    Hey, put it in what you asked.
    Yes, that’s true.
    That’s super cool.
    Yeah, so that’s it.
    The Hustle Daily Show, hosted by John Wigel, Juliet Bennett, Ryla, and Mark Dent,
    is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network,
    the audio destination for business professionals.
    The Hustle Daily Show brings you a healthy dose of irreverent,
    offbeat, and informative takes on business and tech news.
    They recently had an episode about advertisers wanting billboards in space.
    It was a really fun and informative episode.
    I suggest you check it out.
    Listen to The Hustle Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
    So one of the things, like, when it comes to, you know,
    using AI for code that I’ve ran into a few times,
    is like, I’ll have it build something, and then there’ll be a bug,
    and then I’ll say, hey, this bug is popping up.
    Can you fix it?
    It’ll fix that bug, and then maybe introduce a new bug.
    Or it’ll keep on, like, having that same bug over and over and over again.
    I know a lot of the LLMs have gotten better and better and better over time.
    We’ve now got Cloud 4.
    We’ve got Gemini 2.5 Pro.
    A lot of these LLMs have gotten a lot better at coding.
    But I’m curious, like, how does Lovable specifically
    maybe help overcome some of that kind of frustration
    that, like, the Vibe coders might have?
    Yeah.
    So Lovable is not just a call to Cloud, like the new Cloud model.
    It does a few agentic chain, which is that it tries to understand,
    okay, what’s the context here?
    Like, exactly what information is most relevant
    to solve this specific problem that you’re having.
    If you’re seeing a repeated bug, like, that’s one type of situation.
    And then we’re applying best practices that we’ve been iterated ourselves towards
    to solve that specific type of context that you’re in.
    Okay, you’re stuck with the same type of bug.
    And we feed in some of those best practices
    that are, like, adopted to work
    for the specific technology stack that Lovable applications are built on.
    So that’s what we do to date.
    And another important thing is that we have to give access
    to, like, what human engineers use to debug,
    which is the AI is able to read all the error messages
    and, like, all the logs that are created
    as the user interacts with the website.
    So that’s fed into the AI system.
    So then you can see that if there’s a bug,
    it can really get much more of a picture of, like,
    what actually happened here,
    and then use that in terms of figuring out the error.
    That’s what takes most time for most software engineers
    to understand what is it exactly that goes wrong.
    It doesn’t work.
    It’s not sufficient information to fix it.
    So those are some of the things we’re doing,
    and we’re working on a lot more.
    Very cool.
    This is sort of getting more into the, like,
    theoretical, philosophical kind of area.
    And I’m not sure if this is something you’ve thought about or not.
    So if you haven’t, we can just always skip over it.
    But I’m curious, like, when everybody has access
    to be able to develop any software,
    how do companies, like, actually build a moat?
    Like, have you thought about that at all?
    Like, how would a software company actually build something
    if, like, anybody else can just go and use a tool
    to build the same thing?
    Like, how do businesses get formed around this kind of thing?
    I mean, you don’t need a moat to build a great business.
    Right.
    I don’t think so.
    And, I mean, most of the moats are the same.
    I think there is a bit of a moat in terms of just trust
    and knowing who’s behind this,
    that these people who built this have my best intentions at heart.
    Right.
    That will always remain.
    Then there are, like, network effects moats.
    So I guess, like, one on that all your friends are using it,
    and then it becomes more productive to use this tool.
    And one on that this tool is connected to everything else out there,
    and that’s, like, a network platform effect.
    Right.
    And I think, like, maybe at some point there’s an economy of scale as well,
    like, that you can make it give a better value proposition
    because you’re larger.
    That hasn’t shown to be so useful in software businesses,
    but maybe that’s going to be the case in the future as well.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    So I want to shift the conversation quickly to the topic of AGI,
    because I know in the past you’ve also mentioned
    that you want to help contribute to getting to AGI.
    So a couple questions there.
    A, how would you define AGI?
    Because I feel like, obviously, everybody kind of has a slightly different definition.
    And then the follow-up to that is, like, how does Lovable,
    or what you’re trying to build, sort of get us closer to that?
    Yeah.
    My favorite definition is that at the point when anything you could hire a human remote
    worker for can be done with AI, that’s when you have AGI.
    It hedges you against that humans can do some things that only humans can,
    because we humans don’t want to talk to a machine.
    We want to talk to a human.
    But if it’s a remote, like a remote and over Slack, I think,
    then it’s only cognitive labor.
    It’s a pure cognitive labor.
    So I think that’s a pretty clear way to define,
    is it intelligence and not just a human that has networks and connections with other humans?
    Right.
    But how do we get there?
    I think building systems that execute, write and execute code is a huge part of this.
    And increasingly, what I’m thinking is that we are not going to work on the foundation model layer.
    We’re creating the most delightful and intuitive interface to interface with this type of technology.
    And now it’s for spinning up software, and that’s hosted, available for anyone.
    In the future, we’re naturally adding a lot more types of interactions into our interface,
    like, oh, browse the web for me and find all these interfaces, these things,
    and then put them into a website, or even like, okay, can you check for all the feature requests
    from my email and then implement some of them?
    Like, that’s the type of direction that we would go for on the very long term.
    And that type of interface is going to be one of the most important things in how humans perceive
    the level that AI has reached, right?
    Like, it’s a good friend of mine told me way, way back, 10 years ago,
    like, the AI is never better than the UI.
    So if you can’t, as a human, get value from it, then it’s worthless, right?
    Yeah.
    Do you think that, like, the future of UI, the future of user interface is going to be
    what it is now, where people are sort of typing prompts, and we have these sort of visual user
    interfaces, or do you think it’s going to switch to some alternate modality?
    No, I think it’s going to be pure mind reading in the future, right?
    We don’t know what it’s going to be yet.
    It’s going to be a combination of things, like, us humans are really good at getting a lot
    of information visually, so that’s going to continue to be a big part, and like, we’re
    not as good at getting a lot of information by reading text, I think, as like, just looking
    at a picture and boom, you get a lot of information really fast.
    Right.
    That’s going to be a part of it, and then, like, how you as a human communicate as much
    information as possible to an AI, which is going to be important as well.
    I mean, at some point, I do think we’re going to see more and more adoption of, like, brain
    computer interfaces, but just speaking or lip reading might be like an emerging pattern
    UX-wise with AI.
    Yeah, yeah.
    You know, I had some chats with people over at, like, Microsoft and Google and that sort
    of thing, and sort of their position is that they want AI to be much more predictive, right?
    Like, it knows what you want to do before you ask it to do the thing.
    It’s going to get to this point where it starts to understand you, it understands your patterns,
    it understands what you do on a daily basis, anticipates it, and then just gets ahead of
    you on it.
    So, I don’t know, to me, that’s like a real sort of fascinating future that we’re heading
    into with AI.
    Yeah, that’s huge.
    Is there anything else that we didn’t cover about, you know, Lovable and what you’ve been
    building that you think we should be covering?
    I could talk a bit about, like, where this technology is giving the most value today.
    We spoke to one of our users recently, Felipe, I think it was a very fun story where he had
    built large companies before.
    He raised $50 million, hired 130 engineers, and now he’s past that.
    And he’s just building a business himself using Lovable.
    And then he can take all the ideas instantly and it moves so much faster, which is a bit
    paradoxical, to having this large organization where there are many chains of communication.
    And it sounds very productive to have 130 engineers, right?
    But he’s making tens of thousands of dollars on this, like, small new business that he’s
    growing organically.
    This is like the stereotypical AI native founder that I think we’re going to hear a lot more
    from in how one person can build much faster than larger companies.
    And we’re doing where they let AI do more and more, you know, the building part, but also
    the marketing side.
    And all of that is going to be like one human and a lot of AI systems.
    So that’s what we’re seeing.
    What also inspires me a lot is that kids love to use Lovable because they are super creative,
    right?
    They love to create things.
    And I’ve seen many, like, 14-year-olds and even younger who post, like, they’re selling
    something online or they’re, like, services to walk the dogs with a website built on Lovable.
    And increasingly now, since we launched a Teams plan recently, Lovable is getting huge in
    larger companies, like, Fortune 500 companies that are individuals in Teams.
    They accelerate how the team and the entire company takes decisions, both in the terms of,
    like, okay, we should really build this thing.
    Look, I’ve already built it.
    It’s working.
    And then they look in engineering and for building tools that just accelerates, like, finance,
    the marketing, building landing pages and all of that.
    So it’s fun that it’s a tool that’s being used for so many different things.
    And we’re just keeping up on our side.
    Yeah, I think last year at some point, Sam Altman from OpenAI mentioned that he thinks
    within the next couple of years, we’re going to see the first billion-dollar company built
    by one person, right?
    And then Daria from Anthropic just said it again, like, two weeks ago that he thinks within
    2026, we’ll probably see the first one-person billion-dollar company, which is absolutely wild.
    Also, you mentioned kids are building apps.
    I actually had a conversation with Kevin Scott, the CTO of Microsoft, and he told this whole
    story about how his daughter built an entire app for her school.
    And he was frustrated because she didn’t even consult with him.
    And he’s a software developer.
    She just went and built it herself.
    I mean, what you’re saying, we’re definitely seeing more and more of.
    It’s fun that kids are going to be, of course, better than older people generally to use AI.
    And it’s going to be such a difference in how productive you are if you’re good at using
    AI.
    Yeah, yeah.
    I have one small rabbit hole I want to go down with you really, really quickly.
    I’m curious how the developer community as a whole has received something like Lovable.
    Because I know some developers probably absolutely love it.
    It speeds up their time.
    But then there’s also that sort of existential fear that their skill that they’ve been building
    is no longer needed.
    How has the reception been so far?
    If you just look at the product, the features, a lot of developers love that you just create
    a fully working application.
    And then if you want to go in and customize, use your normal ID, you just sync it with the
    like secure code base.
    And then you’re getting more done and you’re shipping more value to your customer, your employer.
    And that’s like a very positive reception generally.
    If you do zoom out and you’re like, oh, but wait, where is this actually headed?
    Yeah.
    Then it is the case that people are like, wait, what’s my role in all of this areas?
    But I think it’s not so different from anyone working in white collar jobs that everything
    is going to be easier and easier to automate.
    If you’re on top and master these tools, you’re going to be much, much more valuable in the
    workplace.
    But otherwise, you’re not going to maybe have an as cushy job as a software engineer
    has been.
    But you’re going to have to combine that with like doing sales or doing something more manual
    as well.
    There’s going to be a potentially the long term reduction in how many people sit and build
    software.
    Yeah.
    No, I couldn’t agree more.
    And like you mentioned, a lot of the white collar work is in that same boat, right?
    Like if your job is sitting around looking at Excel spreadsheets all day or bookkeeping
    or doing research for a law firm, a lot of that work is also going to probably get automated
    away through AI fairly quickly too.
    And just one thing on the software, the demand for software doesn’t end.
    Like there’s seems to be a lot of things that can improve, be improved with software.
    And hence, there’s going to be more people building software, maybe fewer people writing code.
    That’s how I see it.
    Oh yeah.
    That makes a lot of sense to me.
    Well, Anton, this has been absolutely amazing.
    I know you have to get off to another meeting, so I don’t want to waste any more of your time.
    So the app is over at lovable.app.
    That’s the best place to go to get it?
    Yeah.
    Or lovable.dev is the normal one.
    Oh, lovable.dev.
    Okay.
    So head over to lovable.dev.
    Is there any place that you maybe want people to follow you on social media or anything like
    that after listening to this interview?
    I share fun takes on building from Europe and on the AI space and what’s happening with
    our advancements at my Twitter.
    That’s my first and last name combined.
    Awesome.
    Well, thank you so much for hanging out with me and having this conversation.
    It’s been really fun and, you know, really excited to see how lovable evolves over time.
    So really appreciate it.
    Thank you.
    Likewise.
    It was a pleasure.
    I’m looking forward to another chat in the future.
    Absolutely.
    Absolutely.
    Absolutely.
    Absolutely.
    We’ve got a major announcement.
    HubSpot is the first CRM to launch a deep research connector with ChatGPT.
    Customers can now bring their customer context into the HubSpot deep research connector and
    take action on those insights.
    Now you can do truly remarkable things for your business.
    Customer success teams can quickly surface inactive companies, identify expansion opportunities
    and receive targeted plays to re-engage pipelines.
    Then take those actions in the customer success workspace in HubSpot to drive retention.
    Support teams can analyze seasonal patterns and ticket volume by category to forecast staffing
    needs for the upcoming quarter and activate Breeze customer agents to handle spikes in support
    tickets.
    This truly is a game changer for the first time ever.
    Get the power of ChatGPT fueled by your CRM data with no complex setup.
    The HubSpot deep research connector will automatically be available to all HubSpot accounts across
    all tiers that have a ChatGPT team, enterprise, or Edu subscription.
    Turn on the HubSpot deep research connector in ChatGPT to get powerful PhD level insights from
    your customer data.
    Now let’s get back to the show.
    Thank you.

    Episode 63: What if you could turn your idea into a fully working app—just by describing it in plain English? Matt Wolfe (https://x.com/mreflow) sits down with Anton Osika (https://x.com/antonosika), CEO of Lovable, a revolutionary platform that lets anyone build and launch software using AI—no code or development team required.

    In this episode, Anton gives a live demo of Lovable, reveals how creators of all ages—including kids and solo founders—are launching real businesses in hours, and dives into how AI-powered platforms like Lovable will change the future of entrepreneurship, creativity, and even move us closer to AGI. If you’re a builder, maker, or curious about the next frontier in software creation, this conversation will reshape how you think about launching your next product.

    Check out The Next Wave YouTube Channel if you want to see Matt and Nathan on screen: https://lnk.to/thenextwavepd

    Show Notes:

    • (00:00) AI-Powered Code Revolution

    • (04:21) Engineers as Problem Translators

    • (07:50) Supabase Integration Simplifies Startups

    • (10:49) Enhancing Design and Collaboration

    • (16:46) Intuitive AI Interface Development

    • (19:31) AI Empowering Solo Entrepreneurs

    • (22:40) Future of Software Development: Automation Impact

    • (24:18) Lovable App

    Mentions:

    Get the guide to build your own Custom GPT: https://clickhubspot.com/tnw

    Check Out Matt’s Stuff:

    • Future Tools – https://futuretools.beehiiv.com/

    • Blog – https://www.mattwolfe.com/

    • YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/@mreflow

    Check Out Nathan’s Stuff:

    The Next Wave is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by Hubspot Media // Production by Darren Clarke // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano

  • Warlords, Espionage, and Disinformation | Introducing Hot Money: Agent of Chaos

    AI transcript
    Hi, I’m Sam Jones, and I hope you don’t mind me dropping in to give you a quick preview
    of my new podcast, Hot Money, Agent of Chaos. It all started in 2020, when my colleagues
    at the Financial Times exposed the German company Wirecard as a huge fraud. But underneath
    that I discovered another, more elusive tale. Jan Marsalek was more than just Europe’s biggest
    financial con artist. He was someone who had other lives. And his shadow, it seemed to appear
    in the most unexpected places. In the investigation into a deadly poisoning, in the wake of an
    Austrian political scandal, in Libya’s refugee camps, with mercenaries in Syria, oligarchs
    on the French Riviera. Bulgarian criminals in a dishevelled English seaside resort.
    I’ve been pulling together all these threads to try and understand who Jan Marsalek was,
    and what it is that connects them all. And I think I’ve got an explanation for you. It’s
    a story that says as much about our own society as it does about the wildlife of one rogue individual.
    It’s about power and corruption, and the secret front line of a huge geopolitical game
    that affects us all. I hope you enjoy this preview, and if you do, find Hot Money,
    Agent of Chaos, wherever you listen to your podcasts.
    It’s a winter’s day in 2018. Paul Murphy is standing in front of the mirror of the gents’
    lavatory at work. He’s changing for lunch.
    I kind of stopped wearing ties, but I think I put a tie on for that occasion.
    Paul is in his mid-fifties. He’s got a slightly grizzled look about him. You wouldn’t pick
    him out in a crowd, but that’s an advantage in his line of work.
    In his hands, Paul is holding a small silver disc about the size of a penny. He takes his shirt
    off, grabs a piece of medical tape, and fixes this disc onto his shoulder, because this disc
    is a tiny microphone. He slips his white shirt back on, puts a jacket on top, and with one last
    glance in the mirror, he’s ready for lunch. Paul is the head of investigations at the Financial Times
    in London. He takes a cab across town, to Mayfair, to a venue called 45 Park Lane.
    It’s, you know, it’s one of those places that is priced to keep out ordinary people. You know,
    it’s all glass windows and bling and mirrored interiors and very few customers. Very few.
    It’s Dubai style, essentially.
    As Paul walks in, he tries to keep his cool. Despite four decades in journalism, this is a
    first for him. He’s never actually worn a wire himself.
    It’s very, very nerve-wracking. You know, I’ve got a bug on me. You know, I didn’t want our
    undercover team to get discovered. That would be hugely embarrassing. So I was, you know,
    I was nervous.
    The maitre d’ escorts Paul across the room, and there, rising from his chair, smiling
    courteously and greeting Paul with a handshake, is the man he’s come to meet, Jan Marsalek.
    Very slim, athletic build, razor-sharp blue suit.
    Paul came here to set a trap, to get this successful businessman on tape.
    But by the time they finish their meal, he wonders if he’s the one who has walked into
    a trap.
    If I’m honest, I felt a bit amateurish, you know. We were out of our depth. This guy was
    very, very slick, controlled, careful, polished. And, you know, I’m not.
    My name is Sam Jones, and I’m a journalist with the Financial Times. I’m a foreign correspondent
    based in Central Europe. This lunch you’ve just heard about, it’s the unexpected beginning
    of an investigation that has, in one way or another, preoccupied me for the past five years.
    At the centre of it is the man in the sharp blue suit, Jan Marsalek. A man who, I discovered,
    is so fascinated by risk and deceit that one identity, one life, wasn’t enough for him.
    I find it’s often people like this, the most unusual people, who reveal universal truths,
    the fact that we’re all inventors of our own personal narratives, how fictions can be stitched
    together to create realities.
    This tale begins in London and Munich, but leaps across the globe, from Libya to Austria,
    from Bulgaria to Afghanistan, from the Côte d’Azur to Moscow.
    Jan Marsalek’s life is a window into a hidden world of geopolitical power games, games which,
    in ways big and small, govern our lives. Games which have never felt more relevant, or the
    players of them, harder to fathom. This is a story about espionage, about Europe, about Russia,
    and ultimately, America. From the Financial Times and Pushkin Industries, this is Hot Money,
    Season 3, Agent of Chaos. Episode 1, The Bride.
    Paul Murphy hired me to work for the FT 17 years ago. It’s been a long time since Paul’s
    my actual boss, but he was, and still is, a mentor to me. All of my best habits in journalism,
    and some of my worst ones, I’ve picked up from Paul. Pretty much since starting my career,
    every couple of months or so, I end up at lunch with him, in Sweetings. It’s a noisy,
    crowded fish restaurant, deep in the city, London’s financial district. It’s distinctly old school,
    even a bowler hat wouldn’t look out of place. And coming here, it underscores lesson number one
    in the Paul Murphy School of Journalism.
    You have to get out of the bloody office. Get out of the bloody office. Young reporters in particular
    think that you can do everything digitally. But actually, you get a lot more information
    of somebody face to face. You have to win people’s trust. And one way of doing that is have lunch with
    people. It’s a great social setting to develop, you know, a relationship with somebody who you need
    them to trust you. I want to paint a bit of a picture for you about Paul, because it pays in
    this story to try and get the measure of people’s character. Or at least, to try and understand the
    version of themselves people present to the world, and why. Although Paul spends a lot of time at lunch,
    he’s definitely not just another city soak. Most people tend to miss the little silver ring he’s
    wearing, a skull designed by his daughter. People miss a lot about Paul, but that’s part of the trick.
    He’s very good at being underestimated. And because of that, he’s also very good at getting people to
    trust him, to talk to him, and to give him information.
    To understand why I was drawn into this story, you need to know a bit about the reporting that was
    dominating Paul’s life back in 2018. He and his star reporter, Dan McCrum, were neck deep investigating a
    German company called Wirecard, a company that was run by the man in the razor-sharp blue suit,
    the man who Paul would eventually meet for lunch in Mayfair, Jan Marsalek. Wirecard ran the financial
    plumbing behind billions of online transactions. It was so successful at that point, it was even
    secretly plotting a takeover of Germany’s biggest bank. So to the world, Wirecard was a booming digital
    payments company. To Paul and his reporter, Dan, Wirecard was a huge fraud, and they were well on
    the way to proving it. But it was no normal fraud. Because for months, Paul and Dan, they suspected
    they’d been under intense surveillance, all directed by someone at Wirecard, from its base in southern
    German. I mean, it’s kind of like, almost sounds silly to recount it. But, you know, we were paranoid
    about being followed around London, we would get on and off tube trains quickly, just in case somebody
    was getting on the same tube train as us. We would turn off our phones, so that our location couldn’t
    be tracked. Dan had already had his emails hacked, and some of them leaked online. It was an attempt to
    embarrass and discredit him. There had been a mounting and seemingly coordinated attack on his
    reputation on social media. When Paul told me all of this over a series of lunches at Sweetings,
    I guess he was doing so because he wanted to know if I had any contact, in private intelligence or even
    in the actual intelligence services, people who might be able to help. Because the subject I really write
    about, the subject that has become my specialism at the FT, is spying. Paul was probably also telling me
    out of frustration, because back then he and Dan had hit a bit of a wall in their reporting. They’d
    published all they could about Wirecard based on the evidence they had gathered so far, but they still
    didn’t have a smoking gun. And Wirecard’s aggressive lawyers, Shillings, had meanwhile come down hard on
    them. Dan had only just avoided a ruinous lawsuit. It wasn’t a great time.
    It was this sense that, what have we got ourselves into? That was like a real low moment. Maybe I’ve
    got myself into a bit too much hot water here. You do start to worry what you’ve sort of brought down
    on your family. It was quite oppressive. There was this turning point for Dan. One of his sources rang
    him up to tell him he’d been roughed up on the street by two thugs right outside his children’s
    school. They demanded to know if this source had passed on confidential information about Wirecard.
    Hearing this sent Dan into a bit of a tailspin, because suddenly he was worrying about the safety
    of his own family. My first thing is I sort of go home and obsessively change every single one of my
    passwords. Start checking all the security on my house. I mean, the worst moment is we had just moved
    into this rented house. And I suddenly realized I haven’t checked the lock on this patio door at the
    back of the house, which we’d never used. And it just slides straight open. Like our house had
    essentially been unlocked for the last couple of months. And at that point, I really did start
    freaking out about security, who might be after us. I mean, I basically became really paranoid.
    It was right at the peak of this paranoia that something even stranger happened.
    Something that led to that lunch at 45 Park Lane. Paul was talking to one of his oldest sources.
    And we got onto the subject of Wirecard. Just a completely, you know, innocent, relaxed conversation.
    And this guy just suddenly said, you know that they’ll pay you a lot of money to stop writing about
    them. And I kind of laughed. And he stopped me and said, no, they will pay you $10 million to stop
    writing about them. I don’t know if you work in the kind of job or live the kind of life where you’ve
    ever been bribed. But even as a journalist for the FT, this doesn’t really happen, let alone for such a
    ridiculous sum of money. I mean, for $10 million, what would you do? And as such, it takes Paul a while
    to realise that this is a serious offer. How do you know this? He asks. Through my son, his source tells
    him. He’s got to know someone at Wirecard pretty well. They’ve been out together a few times, carousing.
    He’s called Jan Marsalek. And then Paul’s source, he says something which makes Paul clock that this
    offer is real. Marsalek is paying this guy more than $200,000 just to convey the message. You should meet
    him for lunch, he suggests. So what does Paul say? Tell me when and tell me where.
    Paul has no intention of taking the bribe. But this backchannel offer, it seems to confirm everything
    they suspect about Wirecard.
    absolutely confirmed all our suspicions. Which were that the company is a criminal enterprise.
    Absolutely. This was kind of tangible evidence.
    All they need now is for Marsalek to offer the bribe himself and to get that on tape. It’s time for the FT to
    mount its own surveillance operation.
    So that day at 45 Park Lane, the formal introduction’s over, it’s time to order.
    Steaks. The overpriced speciality of this place. Around £170 for a six-ounce filet mignon.
    Right from the start, though, Paul begins to feel that Marsalek isn’t quite what he was expecting.
    Paul is on edge, but he’s not alone. To his relief, it’s not long before he spots his undercover
    support team. Three FT colleagues who pose as wealthy ladies catching up over lunch.
    They’ve snagged a table just next to him, and they look pretty convincing.
    One of the reporters places her handbag on the back of a chair.
    Hidden inside, a camera films the lunch at an angle, catching Jan Marsalek in profile.
    You can hear the tenor of his voice, but the background noise means it’s impossible
    to make out his words.
    To me, watching this footage back, it’s striking how animated he is.
    He turns from side to side, addressing everyone at the table as he talks.
    His face lights up. He’s sort of holding court, emphasising his words with expansive hand gestures.
    He almost looks like a politician.
    The longer the conversation goes on like this, the more clear it becomes to Paul that
    Marsalek is the one in control.
    This guy is expansive and engaging, charming, but not at all defensive.
    There’s no trace of anger or guilt or care.
    He gently protests about the FT’s unfair coverage of Wirecard, as if it’s been an inconvenience.
    But his whole tone seems to be saying, let’s put this behind us.
    As they settle into the meal, Paul nudges the conversation into more dubious terrain.
    Eager to get something incriminating, even if it’s just a hint of something, on tape and on camera.
    I certainly talked about the kind of aggression that the business had shown us.
    And we also talked about whether journalists were corrupt.
    And he absolutely assured me that he knew that journalists could be bought.
    I remember saying, we don’t take bribes.
    And I remember him very specifically saying, I know that, Paul.
    I know you don’t.
    I’ve seen evidence that you don’t take bribes.
    And I thought, ah, you’ve seen my bank account.
    I remember the kind of jolting that he was kind of like stating this so openly.
    But the conversation continues in this vein, nothing concrete.
    The killer offer of a bribe Paul had been hoping for.
    Well, it’s clear that Marsalek is far too savvy an operator to make it here and now, at their first meeting.
    I pretty quickly, you know, came to the conclusion that I wasn’t going to be offered a bribe in front of these people.
    A bit of a damp squip, in a way.
    Yes, it was.
    So Paul is now left wondering, what does Marsalek want from him?
    Why has this meeting happened if he’s not actually going to make him some kind of offer?
    The lunch lasted about 90 minutes.
    And at the end, Marsalek insisted on paying.
    And pulled out a gold credit card, a novelty credit card of solid gold.
    Was he a bit of a show-off?
    Well, yes.
    You know, we’re in one of the most expensive restaurants in London, eating kind of 200 quid steak.
    And he was paying for the bill with a gold credit card.
    So, yeah.
    As Paul leaves the restaurant, he almost laughs at himself for having thought he’d be heading back with something explosive.
    But he also realises that this experience actually hasn’t been a busted flush.
    Far from it.
    Meeting Jan Marsalek has only intrigued Paul more.
    It’s put him into 3D.
    There’s something about Marsalek he can’t quite put his finger on.
    I felt I’d met somebody who was very controlled and confident, who was almost certainly corrupt.
    I basically said, can we do that again?
    And indeed, Paul does meet with him again.
    That’s coming up after the break.
    When Paul first started telling me about Wirecard, I think I treated it all as entertaining table talk.
    Paul is a great teller of stories, and I always enjoyed hearing the gossip about what his investigations team was up to.
    After he told me about meeting Marsalek, though, something began to needle at me.
    Just a feeling about what kind of person Marsalek was.
    A feeling I couldn’t pin down.
    Until I heard about the second lunch.
    One month after that lunch at Park Lane, Paul met Marsalek again, this time without undercover colleagues or secret cameras.
    It was just the two of them.
    They met at the Lanesborough, another high-end hotel in London.
    We talked about geopolitics.
    We talked about technology.
    We talked about finance.
    You know, we talked about the state of the world.
    He had interesting opinions and information on all these things.
    If I’m honest, at this stage, I’d become fascinated by this character because he seemed to know so many people.
    And I kind of, you know, I was thinking, well, you know, he’s probably not going to offer me a bribe.
    We’re not going to just catch him.
    He’s not that stupid.
    This guy is smart, and he knows people, and he has information.
    At this point, did it occur to you that he’d charmed you in any way?
    Yes, it did, but he was a charming man.
    Did you like him?
    Yeah.
    Yes, I liked him.
    If Wirecard, if you hadn’t have known it to be a fraud, do you think you would have sought to stay in touch with him?
    Absolutely, absolutely.
    I mean, in actual fact, you know, my thinking after that second lunch, I did.
    I actually thought I’m going to, you know, develop this guy as a source.
    What did you think he was hoping to get out of a relationship with you?
    Actually, it was very clear.
    We posed an existential risk to Wirecard.
    He knew that by, you know, building a relationship directly with me,
    that he could potentially stop us writing about them,
    or at least he’d get the kind of intel in advance about what we were thinking.
    So as Paul tells me about all of this, the feeling I get most is that a game is afoot.
    And both Paul and Marsalek are enjoying playing it.
    They’ve both established rapport, they’re both working to build trust, but they also test each other, push,
    try to implicate each other in this polite conversation.
    And all of this grips me because in it I see so much of the kind of psychology that I’ve spotted glimpses of covering intelligence and espionage.
    I recognise the shape of this kind of interaction.
    A certain amused, matter-of-fact detachment from things, despite the stakes.
    Think about it.
    Marsalek is lunching happily with a man who is trying to destroy the company he works for and put him in jail.
    And Paul?
    Well, in a funny way, Paul is being encouraged into a minor transgression.
    Something that almost felt to me like a textbook trick from an intelligence recruitment manual.
    An indiscretion that might later make you vulnerable.
    Because Paul does all of this, works Marsalek,
    behind the back of the lead reporter on the Wirecard project, Dan McCrum.
    Why were you dealing with Marsalek and not Dan?
    Dan and I are different characters.
    Dan is a guy, you know, he’s tall and he has all his features in the right place.
    And if your daughter brought him home as a boyfriend, he’d be really happy.
    You know, he’s a good guy, he’s intelligent, he’s articulate, he’s well-educated.
    But actually, actually, Dan is lethal.
    Dan’s like a kind of smiling axe man.
    He’s dangerous.
    He’s forensic.
    Yes, he’s absolute forensic and he won’t let it lie.
    And, you know, I have a different style, all right?
    I’m much softer and I, you know, chat people up and, you know,
    I present myself as being very kind of clubbable.
    You know, all journalists have different styles.
    I mean, I think you’re probably more comfortable playing a role as well, no?
    Possibly, yes.
    Reading between the lines, I think probably a doubting part of him
    was also wondering whether the Wirecard investigation was at a dead end.
    The threat of a lawsuit from shillings meant their reporting had stalled.
    And if that was the case, it might be worth Paul pursuing Marsalek as a source of his own.
    Someone who could help him with other stories.
    Then, around six months after that second meeting, Paul gets a call from an intermediary.
    Marsalek conveys that he has something very interesting to offer.
    Documents.
    He hints at what they’re about and it sounds outlandish.
    But it’s enough of a hint that Paul agrees to Marsalek’s suggestion
    that he fly out to Munich, where Marsalek lives, in order to get them.
    They meet at the Kiefer Schenker.
    It’s a Munich institution, patrician, reassuringly expensive,
    white tablecloths, panelled rooms, but warm and efficient service.
    And it’s practically Marsalek’s house restaurant.
    Jan was waiting for me outside.
    We went in.
    We had a little private room.
    I remember having salmon with caviar.
    And as they talked, Marsalek pushed a brown folder full of papers
    across the table towards Paul.
    But of course, he’s in a restaurant.
    I couldn’t pull them out and start reading through them.
    I just had to kind of politely say,
    thank you very much, I’ll have a read of those.
    And then we just had a kind of stilted, awkward lunch conversation.
    We talked about his bad back.
    If I’m honest, I was trying to get out of the lunch as quickly as possible
    because I wanted to see what was in the folder.
    They finished lunch.
    Marsalek said he had to go back to the office.
    The restaurant has lots of kind of separate bars and rooms.
    And so I literally went down some stairs and found myself a little corner
    and sat down and opened the folder.
    These documents, they related to something that happened in the UK that spring.
    Something awful, which had shocked the whole country.
    Yesterday afternoon, passers-by noticed two people,
    apparently unconscious, on a bench in Salisbury.
    The area…
    The Salisbury poisonings.
    As a police presence remains here in the city whilst they investigate,
    residents and visitors to the city have been reacting to the news.
    Yeah, just completely surprised and shocked that something could happen like this in Salisbury.
    An assassination attempt against a former spy using one of the deadliest nerve agents ever created,
    a chemical that only a handful of government specialists knew about,
    Novichok 234.
    The spy was found half-dead alongside his unconscious daughter.
    But thanks to some remarkable medical work, they both survived.
    Another local resident, a mother of three, did not.
    She died after coming into contact with the Novichok.
    It had been hidden by the assassins in a perfume bottle.
    The intended target was soon identified as a Russian intelligence officer who had fled to Britain in 2010.
    Prime Minister Theresa May announced to a shocked parliament that Moscow was to blame.
    The government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS
    are officers from the Russian military intelligence service,
    also known as the GRU.
    The GRU, the main directorate, Russia’s fearsome military intelligence agency,
    an organisation with goals that should have consigned it to Cold War history,
    misinformation, civil disorder, violence, assassinations.
    Under Vladimir Putin’s long watch, the GRU has quietly grown in power and influence.
    In the weeks that followed the poisoning, Russia aggressively denied its involvement.
    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, meanwhile,
    launched its own investigation.
    Sending its experts to Salisbury to pour over the evidence.
    They produced a highly classified dossier based on shared intelligence and chemical analysis from the site.
    The dossier also included Russia’s own version of events.
    These were the documents Paul now had in his hands.
    It was fascinating to read all this kind of close detail, you know, the Russian version of the story.
    And then the other very interesting part of the documents was the actual formula for Novichok.
    The chemical diagram for the poison.
    A technical outline for something that had been kept hidden from the world for decades.
    A weapon of mass destruction.
    Run a business and not thinking about podcasting?
    Think again.
    More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora.
    And as the number one podcaster, iHeart’s twice as large as the next two combined.
    So whatever your customers listen to, they’ll hear your message.
    Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio.
    Think podcasting can help your business?
    Think iHeart.
    Streaming, radio and podcasting.
    Call 844-844-IHEART to get started.
    That’s 844-844-IHEART.
    So what have we got?
    Fart 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 sort of staple chiefs of paper.
    Those documents that Marsalek handed over that day at the Kefershenka, Paul showed them to me.
    And, well, they’re internal documents from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
    And these have been sort of illegally photocopied, right?
    Or so I think they’re photocopies anyway.
    Yeah, they’re all kind of photocopies, except that one is a PowerPoint presentation.
    They’ve all got barcodes on them.
    And this sort of big stamped watermark, which says…
    This printout may contain OPCW confidential information warning.
    Yeah.
    They’re all different copy numbers, though, as well, aren’t they?
    Yeah, which is kind of curious.
    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is an international body based in The Hague.
    Almost all of the world’s big military powers are signatories.
    Its job is to police and monitor weapons like Novichok, to ensure they are never, ever used.
    What was going through your head when you kind of first pulled this out of the manila envelope that they were all in?
    Well, I was looking for a story.
    You know, the Salisbury poisoning had been headline news for weeks on end.
    Suddenly, I had, you know, what clearly were kind of classified documents pertaining specifically to that event.
    There had to be a story in it.
    You know, that’s what I was after.
    And I was struck at how detailed and careful and yet completely fanciful the Russian version of events was.
    In the documents, the Russians made the case that the British had manufactured Novichok.
    Because Salisbury is just down the road from Porton Down, a highly secure military research base.
    And the Russians, they argued that the British government had somehow leaked the Novichok from its own chemical research lab.
    You know, I asked him, you know, point blank, where did he get this information?
    What did he say?
    He said he got it from a friend.
    And he did actually say that, you know, if I wanted further information, I should try him in future.
    That I’d be quite surprised at the sort of information he could access.
    So this was sort of like a little bit of an opening, kind of showing his wares, you know, that if you wanted to keep him on side, then he could push other material your way.
    Yeah, absolutely that.
    He was basically saying, look, I have friends in interesting places.
    I can help you in the future.
    We were building a relationship on both sides.
    While all of this unfolded, Dan McCrum, the lead reporter on the Wirecard investigation, hadn’t been sitting still.
    In fact, he’d just found his very own treasure trove of documents.
    And these documents, they would change everything because they finally gave Dan the ammunition he needed to prove that Wirecard was a fraud and that Marsalek was at the centre of it.
    So when Paul got back to London and Dan told him all of this,
    Paul knew it was time to go back on the offensive against Wirecard directly.
    And also, therefore, that it was time to fess up to Dan and to tell him he’d been secretly lunching with Marsalek over the past few months.
    Paul, you know, he’d gone to meet Marsalek for lunch and he was kind of cultivating this parallel kind of, you know, relationship with Marsalek.
    When did you find out about that and what was your first thought?
    Oh, man.
    There are moments in life when you are taken by surprise.
    I basically think he hadn’t wanted to, like, blow my mind whilst I was focused on getting the story because the important thing was to get the story out.
    But it had reached the point where it was sort of becoming embarrassing that he hadn’t mentioned that he had quietly been dining with Jan Marsalek.
    I’m like, sorry, I’m like, sorry, what?
    But then he goes, he’s been flashing around top secret documents with a recipe for Novichok on them.
    I think my reaction was if he had just tried to tell me that Marsalek had faked the moon landings.
    It was so completely out of left field that you’re like, sorry, what did you just say?
    To be clear, we had no evidence that Marsalek actually had anything to do with carrying out the poisonings.
    But the fact that he even had these documents was a bombshell.
    Not only because the documents made it clear that Marsalek was entangled with something besides just a huge corporate fraud,
    but also because Marsalek had effectively chosen to disclose this.
    Marsalek pulled the spotlight onto himself.
    And it made us realise how little we knew about him at all.
    At that point, we just kind of had this sense that Marsalek was this kind of man of action
    and was mixed up somehow in Viennese politics.
    Wachard’s aggressive surveillance of Paul and Dan intensified.
    And they managed to trace it back to a private security company in Vienna,
    the capital of Austria and Marsalek’s home city.
    Paul and Dan were now going to spend the next few months battling to prove the fraud
    with the new documents Dan had received.
    But me?
    I was about to start a foreign posting in Switzerland and in Austria.
    If I was going to be on the ground, Paul thought,
    then I could surely make some inquiries.
    We already knew that there was a big Vienna angle to all this.
    We just didn’t know what the angle was.
    We just didn’t know which doors you had to knock on.
    We didn’t know who you needed to get to.
    Yeah, well, it worked.
    I remember thinking you were mad.
    I just thought, OK, all right, I’m just going to go to Austria
    and start talking to people about Marsalek.
    But, you know, you were right.
    Sometimes it’s the smallest, most unpromising or unexpected little thread that you pull on that suddenly unravels something.
    Sometimes that thread is just an intuition, a feeling about someone, a sense that there’s definitely something more here I don’t know about,
    but that I recognise the shadow of.
    As it turned out, this particular trace, well, it would slowly unravel into a story that wasn’t just the sordid tale of one well-connected fraudster,
    but instead the tale of one of the biggest spy scandals to have hit Europe since the Cold War.
    To this day, I remember that first note coming back from you, just saying that you needed a secure channel to communicate.
    The detail you put in that first note was just mind-boggling, absolutely shocking.
    It was like a whole world just opened up.
    You know, this was no longer just about some weird German corporate.
    There was this kind of huge geopolitical kind of side to the story that was only just coming into view.
    Maybe you’ve felt in recent years that the world is a less certain place.
    That from the background, there are threats or worries you’d never had to think about before that are suddenly present.
    Wars that look like they might tip out of control.
    Radical politicians tearing at the threads of civil society.
    Lies turned into truth by money.
    Well, this story is, in some senses, an accounting of that.
    A story that can sometimes make you realise how tissue-thin the idea of a stable, law-abiding society can be.
    One that’s governed by economic, political and moral rules we’ve all agreed on.
    It’s a story about what kind of people get drawn into the world on the other side of that.
    And what kind of world that is.
    A space carved out by crime and corruption, where money and power are unchecked by laws, or borders, or markets.
    That kind of world might sound terrifying.
    But to some people, it’s irresistible.
    To some people, it’s not an alternative world at all.
    It’s the real world.
    Coming up this season on Hot Money.
    I know politics is corrupt.
    I know everything.
    I know that.
    I know that.
    I believe to know that.
    But this is too much.
    I thought, I hope that he will talk to you and you will be able to investigate on it.
    And perhaps misdeeds and misbehaviour is stopped.
    Very fast, actually.
    He started then talking about his experience in Syria.
    He definitely has a view that he’s operating with complete freedom to do whatever he likes.
    I don’t know if they followed me to my home.
    The decision was very simple.
    It was a choice between being killed or in prison.
    And the other option was just to try to get real freedom.
    How much of it was an act?
    How much was genius?
    How much was learned?
    How much was instinctive?
    I often ask myself now, did I know the true Jan at all?
    Hot Money is a production of the Financial Times and Pushkin Industries.
    It was written and reported by me, Sam Jones.
    The senior producer and co-writer is Peggy Sutton.
    Our producer is Izzy Carter.
    Our researcher is Maureen Saint.
    Our show is edited by Karen Shakurji.
    Fact-checking by Keira Levine.
    Sound design and mastering by Jake Gorski and Marcelo de Oliveira.
    With additional sound design by Izzy Carter.
    Original music from Matthias Bossi and John Evans of Stellwagen Symphonette.
    Our show art is by Sean Carney.
    Our executive producers are Cheryl Brumley, Amy Gaines McQuaid and Matthew Garrahan.
    Additional editing by Paul Murphy.
    Special thanks to Rula Kalaf, Dan McCrum, Laura Clark, Alistair Mackey, Manuele Zaragoza,
    Nigel Hansen, Vicky Merrick, Eric Sandler, Morgan Ratner, Jake Flanagan, Jacob Goldstein,
    Sarah Nix and Greta Cohn.
    I’m Sam Jones.
    This is an iHeart Podcast.

    In 2020, the Financial Times exposed a 2 billion euro fraud at Wirecard, a high-flying German fintech. Many thought that was the end of the story. But for reporter Sam Jones, it was just the beginning.

    This season on Hot Money: Agent of Chaos, from Pushkin Industries and the Financial Times, Jones investigates Wirecard’s chief operating officer who vanished just as Wirecard collapsed. And turned out to also be a Russian spy.

    Here’s episode 1. Listen to Hot Money: Agent of Chaos wherever you get your podcasts.

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AI Engine Chatbot
AI Avatar
Hi! How can I help?