Fish and Chips and Biden and Harris and Reddit and Twitter

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Saks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Cacchinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the best follow rivals and style inspiration.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or SIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher.

Hola quera donde está usted.

Because as a white, heterosexual male mangling the Spanish language, I think that qualifies me to run for president.

That sounds great.

You sound better than Beto, your boyfriend Beto, who really screwed up on this.

We discussed it in a minute.

I'm in London.

Right now, I just had a delicious lunch of fish and chips, which were fantastic.

It's the only thing I hope these people in London can do well because I hope they lose at soccer, sorry to say.

Even though I can't stand sports, I do like this game because it's being helmed by my lesbian icon, Megan Rapino.

Thank you.

Your Lycon, as I call her.

Your Lycon?

Lycon.

Yeah.

She's part of the militia etherid.

She's our general.

Listen, let's talk about the topics this week.

I'm here in London just to do, I did a very good podcast with Carol Cadwallader, the head of Pearson, all kinds of stuff here.

But let's get into the stuff this week.

Sports.

This is a big thing.

I think it's tonight.

The U.S.

team is playing the British team, and it's the big time for women's soccer, and it's going all over the Twitter and all over the the internet, especially because of it's Captain Megan Rapino's fight with Trump who then fought back.

Thoughts on this?

What's going on?

Well, first off, I think you're blessed, and that is to be in a European city in the midst of a world-class football match.

It really is an amazing experience.

I was in World Cup in London last year.

London, by the way, second best city in the world, a wonderful city.

But to be there with a big match, especially with one of their teams, I don't know where you're going, but they just, the Europeans really do soccer, right?

And it's, it's just a ton of fun to see the city come alive.

Anyways, I think it's great.

I'm going to a bar where I hope to get beat up by British people after we win.

That's my plan.

That's my biggest thing.

That's an image.

I feel sorry for them.

Yeah, me too.

So look,

the controversy here is obviously the discrepancy, the pay gap, right?

And the question I would have, and I'm generally asking this to learn, not to comment because I don't know the answer, But in the 90s and the 2000s, Julia Roberts was the highest paid actor in the world because she generated the largest box office receipts.

And in the 80s and 70s, Billie Jean King showed a lot of leadership and said, as a percentage of the revenue we create in women's tennis, we're getting a lower percentage of that revenue trickling down to us relative to the men.

And she helped start a movement to change that.

My question about women's soccer and the controversy over pay, is it a function of the fact that it just generates a lot less money, or are they indeed being paid less as a percentage of the revenue they produce relative to men?

I think one of the things is generating interest in it is important.

And I think this team, as the last team, I think it was what, 25 years ago?

Whatever, the last team that generated a lot of attention, it was a different time from a media perspective, from an Internet perspective.

And it would be interesting to see what happens, especially if this U.S.

women's team went, how much that will change things.

Because

obviously, the world is interested in soccer, whether it's men's or women's, but in in the U.S., the interest in soccer has

waxed and waned essentially.

And so in a different media environment, which includes the use of the internet, which it's Captain Megan Rapino and other players use, it'll be interesting to see how much attention they can get and how much watching and how much pays for broadcasting and stuff like that.

I think it all links into how much broadcasting pays for these things, correct?

Yeah, it's all about TV.

TV is what generates the majority of the revenue.

But look, at the end of the day,

both great teams.

It's fantastic that we have somebody who's a great spokesperson for America and for the team.

And, you know,

Go America.

I think it's incredibly exciting and inspiring and just fun to watch.

All right.

So we're here doing it slightly earlier this week because of the 4th of July.

We usually tape on Thursdays for Fridays, but we're taping a little bit early because of that.

And I'll be on a plane tomorrow back to the U.S.

So I can go to Trump's

victory party on the mall, which used to be called the 4th of July.

Actually, I'm not going to Washington.

But one of the things that got a lot of attention this week, besides his trip to North Korea, et cetera, was the debates.

Everyone wants us to talk about the debates.

I'd love to get your take on what you think went down.

Well, so we make a lot of predictions, and we made a couple political predictions, I think, seven and four weeks ago.

And one of them was that ageism and sexism were going to set in, and that Biden and Sanders were going to cede, or this is my prediction, we're going to cede share to Beto and Michael Bennett, who I'm a big fan of.

And that has not happened.

You actually felt that, I know you're a fan of Kamala Harris, and you were early and right on this.

She has come on like a freight train.

And she was the big winner coming out of this.

Elizabeth Warren.

So we were right on the ageism part.

We were wrong on the sexism part.

And that is the two frontrunners are,

if you think of a momentum as a frontrunner, and I think at this point momentum is even more important than than your number.

Yeah.

The two candidates with the most momentum are, you know, kind of substance, Elizabeth Warren, Professor Warren, which is awesome to see an academic, and actually offering substance as a means of gaining traction and progress.

And then Senator Harris, who wasn't afraid to take on...

Biden.

And it almost felt like you could literally see, we talk about the torch being passed.

It was almost as if the torch wasn't passed.

It was literally as if she reached across the stage and grabbed it from Joe Biden.

Right, 100%.

It was interesting because it looked like a big setup that he didn't see it coming was fascinating to me.

It was really fascinating to me.

But what was interesting about her is that she's had a hard time breaking out, especially

in this sort of internet-centric quickness.

She's much more, it's harder to get a feel on her immediately.

I think what was great about that debate is they had these moments you could pull out.

Like she understood the snackable, I hate to use that term because I hate it, but politically snackable moments that everyone could see all the good aspects of her.

And she's done it before in hearings where she attacks, you know, Kavanaugh or whoever, because she's a prosecutor, she's very good at that at moments.

And then adding in a little bit of a meme around that little girl was me, added to it.

And I know it sounds cooked, but I think you have to think about that when you're making anything today.

You know, when you're making ads or you're making whatever.

And she effectively did that.

And he was caught flat-footed on a topic he should have known was coming from someone on that stage.

And obviously she would be the obvious person to do it.

But I think she did it super effectively.

Very pithy, very fast.

A lot of meme generation.

It just was really well.

Whoever choreographed that for her, I thought, did it really understood the internet to me, it seems like, internet, I mean, really understood how to make that into a bigger deal than it might have been before.

So as a general rule, and you and I are on CNBC a lot, whenever you're on short-form media and when you're on the debate stage with nine other candidates, it's by virtue of the construct, it's short-form media.

A lesson I didn't learn until a few years ago in general communication strategy is: one, you have to have a series of talking points, and regardless of the question they ask you, you blurt out those talking points.

And so it's that old adage, you answer the question you want to ask.

And, you know, was her response or her going after Joe totally cooked and pre-planned, or was it very effective?

The answer is yes.

And he wasn't sharp on his feet.

He could have retorted, Senator, I don't think you're a racist either.

And by the way, one of us decided to prosecute cohorts that are largely consist of people of color, and one of us decided to defend them because he was actually a public defender.

She was a prosecutor, but he was just sort of, he's kind of playing not to lose at this point.

And that's never a winning strategy.

But what will be very interesting about Senator Harris is you're right, when she has people...

preparing her questions and she's in charge, she's the prosecutor or she's the person at a Senate hearing, she's excellent.

What will be interesting is that when she's on the debate stage and people start questioning her and she has to be quick on her feet.

We haven't seen that yet.

Yeah, absolutely.

I think it'll be interesting.

One of the complaints about her is, especially in this age, and I think, again, Alexandria Ocasio does this well, Trump does this well.

She's got to come across as a person, even though she is a person.

You know what I mean?

A warmer.

That little girl was me.

perfect, was like dead perfect.

And it could also apply.

It was also true, which helped

the situation.

But what was interesting is the backlash to it was equally used against her, which was she's not an American black, which was started.

I'm sure the Russians started it.

I'm almost certain the Russians started that.

And the idea that she was less than black than African American, and then Trump retweeted it.

I mean, the attacks were immediate.

And they were, you know, as many Democratic candidates called out, they were racist and misogynistic, both at the same time.

And so it's interesting to see how quickly the Trump groups organized under, it's all run by Brad Parcell, as far as I'm concerned.

It's how quickly they respond to things and how quickly he got on Kamala Harry.

She's not so good.

He switched really quickly.

quickly and they're very good at that.

It's going to be like that throughout this campaign, is quick responses.

The question is, does it affect voting at all?

Or is it just a ridiculous, exhausting circus sideshow that we've gotten used to, essentially?

Well, what Senator Harris has to show that actually Senator Warren has demonstrated is that they can both clap.

Senator Harris, I don't think, has shown the ability to clap back.

That doesn't mean she can't do it, but she hasn't had hot lights, whereas people have gone after Senator Warren for her policy plans.

And she can take apart.

She is very good on her feet.

Yeah, so is

that a judge?

Your favorite guy.

He's just

talking about Beto after you left Beto.

I just want to say, I think that's a little cold of you, but move along.

Well, Karen, I'm a whore, but I'm an expensive whore.

I'm a four seasons whore.

Anyways, so I don't know what that has to do with P.

Booty.

I'm going to switch something very quickly.

There was a really interesting story about Martin Sorrell in the New York Times.

I don't know if you caught it, about him buying this company that does those Twitchy ads.

I forget the name of it.

It's in

Amsterdam.

I can't remember the name of it.

Anyway,

he's getting back in advertising, and his whole thing is to be like quick and twitchy and new and young and stuff like that.

And I don't know if you had any thoughts on this given your area in media or not, but it was interesting.

And he used to obviously run WPP, left under a lot of

controversy.

Any thoughts on that?

So I know Sir Barton, and I like him a lot.

And I don't see him on a regular basis, but I think he's like, he changed the world of advertising.

He was basically fired.

I don't think he was fired for anything.

Yeah, it was supposedly fired for prostitutes, but then they didn't back it up.

Right.

And prostitution is legal in Britain.

So I don't think he was fired for that.

I think he was fired for being an asshole.

And that is, he's a difficult man.

How are you still working, Scott?

There you go.

You walked right into that.

Thanks very much for that, Kara.

Kara,

I want to say, love me, don't judge me in Spanish, but the words aren't coming.

Anyways, I won't even mangle that language out of respect for

brothers and sisters.

You can't quit him.

Oh, come on.

He's dreamy.

That hair, that throat, he runs a lot.

He's like, the guy's got to have 2% body fat.

Just like Game of Thrones.

2% body fat.

Anyway, go ahead.

Move along about Martin Sorrell.

So, Sir Martin, look, the guy, you don't want to bet against Sir Martin.

And I think the company you're talking about is Media Monks

out of Amsterdam, wherever it is.

Amsterdam.

And he's already started a company, a platform.

He's already taken it public.

And you got to respect the guy who's in his 70s who gets kind of, I don't want to say like drawn and quartered in the public eye and says, you know what, fuck that.

I'm a gangster.

I'm coming back.

And I like that at his age.

By the way, he had a kid at 71 or 72.

So this is a guy who looks in the mirror and sees a guy, you know, that's just past 31 or 32.

And if you meet him, he's incredibly sharp, incredibly vibrant.

I think that, again, he wasn't fired for what I would call a fireable offense.

He was fired for being an asshole and a bunch of the people in his internal circle turned on him.

And it was probably a good, I don't know, a good learning moment for him.

But I think Sir Martin, you don't want to bet against him.

Well, you know, Rashid Tabakawala publishes this, certainly did.

He was like, he's old, late, and whatever.

He was, you know, he's old news, which is interesting.

So what do you think is the new news?

This idea of going after these kind of things like media monks and a good idea in advertising now?

Do you have to?

You know, he built up the modern ad agency, and now that seems like a lumbering giant.

Yeah, I don't think it's a great strategy because essentially the strategy of IPG, WPP, and PubliC was they took lumpy, human-centered businesses that weren't financeable.

And that is, they weren't institutional quality assets because if you bought a small agency and the three principals left after cashing the check, you ended up with an asset that was worthless.

So they basically invented these onerous employment contracts.

And because they pooled a group of lumpy assets, they were able to smooth out the earnings and create an institutional class asset.

And that was owning eight agencies that go up and go down when they lose Ford or they lose Mitsubishi.

As long as you can smooth out those earnings, you create an investable asset class.

And he pioneered that entire notion and construct.

And the basic model for the last 30 years was they would come in and buy a company like my first company, Profit Brand Strategy, that at some point we had,

which is a brand strategy firm.

We had term sheets from all of them at some point in our history.

They buy you at eight to 10 times, and then the marketplace gives WPP 12 to 16 times EBITDA.

So it's basically an ARB deal.

And there aren't that many buyers of these companies because they're very volatile, they're very human-centric, and he figured out a way to make them investable classes.

Three big players emerged are four, IPG, Omnicom, Public, and WPP.

What I think you're going to see is a good bank, bad bank breakup of these companies.

And that is some of these companies Well, some of them have great assets.

WPP has some great assets that are high growth, digitally centered.

And then they have some assets, traditional agencies that are in structural decline that still spin off a lot of cash, but are cigars that are burning down.

And I think what you're going to end up doing is the disposition of some of these assets will be accretive because typically what happens in a conglomerate structure is the marketplace finds the shittiest part of the business and assigns that multiple to the entire thing.

So where you have some incredible businesses at WPP, they all get assigned the same shitty multiple of a communications business.

So you're going to end up with a good bank, bad bank split of a lot of these companies.

Investment bankers are going to make a lot of business.

Which one are goods and which one are bad?

Well, I forget.

XAXIS and WPP, I forget the name.

Saxis is a data company.

I'm mangling again.

I'm mangling the word.

But there are some digital assets within all of these companies that are really strong.

Public has Sapient Nitro, which is an outstanding digital agency.

They would probably trade at a higher multiple, although they acquired it three years ago.

If they spun it out again, it would probably be accretive to shareholders.

So you're about to see a deconglomeration across communications.

So I think Martin's strategy, and again, I don't like to bet against Martin.

Very few people have made money betting against Sir Martin.

But I think the old conglomerate model of rolling up these companies, I think the arbitrage has been squeezed out because the best assets, the people realize they can get top dollar, especially the digital assets, because all these old companies are looking for digital assets to accessorize their analog outfit.

So those companies trade at a premium.

So I don't think the conglomerate model moving forward works that well in communications.

I think it's going to go the other way.

All right.

Okay.

So lastly, there's two things happening in social media related to Trump.

Was Reddit quarantined the biggest pro-Trump section of the site last week for hosting violent threats and violating the site's policies?

And separately, Twitter said it would start labeling tweets from public figures that break its rules, but leave them up.

So, they're sort of slowly moving into dealing with it.

But what do you think?

I think I was just like, what?

You're now going to label lies as lies?

Or how are you going to do that?

It just sort of created more problems.

In terms of Reddit, I'm going to have Steve Huffman, who's the CEO on the podcast soon, the Rico Deco podcast.

They've been doing a lot more.

They have not just quarantined, they've moved down ugly things really deep into the thing a long time ago.

So I feel like Reddit actually did start to address these things in a pretty smart way.

Any thoughts on the Twitter thing of labeling the tweets from public figures?

I have a viewpoint, but

what's your take on this and what's the response from these companies?

What is the rationalization?

If you can label something as a lie and not true, shouldn't you just delete it or prohibit it from ever being able to do it?

Exactly.

I mean, it was interesting.

It was sort of like how they sort of slow-walked into the Alex Jones thing.

I remember being at meetings with all these people, and I said, You're taking him down.

And they're like, No, we're not.

We're just a platformer, benign pen.

I'm like, You're still taking him down.

You'll see.

It'll happen.

You'll, it'll happen.

And I, I, and it was really interesting how they clung to this until they didn't.

And this seems like the same thing.

They're slow-walking this idea.

And I assume they're talking about Trump because he breaks his rules all the time.

So, what's going to be on it?

Like, another lie, like, another, here's the facts.

You know, I don't know.

I think the link to like, this is the actual picture of the, are they going to go back and do ones?

Because he's done hundreds and hundreds of them that are lies.

I mean,

that's what I wonder, like, what happens?

And I think they can't figure it out.

That's like, you know, the Washington Post has been doing this for two years and it's 10,000 lies, many of which are on Twitter.

And so, you know, the quarantining that Reddit's doing seems smarter because these are violent threats and they just move it off.

And they did that to another horrible site, a racist site on that site.

And they moved, even though there's tons of crap in Reddit, they certainly moved it to places that were hard to get to and, you know, in a back, back of a back drawer.

And I think that's the best many of them can do if they want to keep these open platforms.

And at the same time, I'm not sure why they don't just say, take it down, like you said.

I don't understand it.

We're smart enough.

to have the nuance to determine it should be deprioritized, but we're not smart enough.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Just don't allow it.

I think this is sort of a half measure that doesn't make any sense.

These companies companies are coming to grips with the fact that they are media companies, they have to make judgment calls.

But I don't understand.

It's almost like if Fox or MSNBC started labeling certain segments as, okay, this is a little bit out there and we're stretching the facts.

Right.

And they don't do that.

They say, all right, we're either putting stuff up we're going to stand behind or we're not.

And so I don't understand the whole labeling thing.

I do have some sympathy around people who

used the president's tweets as an example.

And I've kind of come around to Twitter's view that he is a public figure.

And the problem is if you were to ever,

he's violated their terms of service.

He should technically be kicked off the platform.

But then somebody starts a Twitter feed that just has everything he says.

He is a public figure.

You probably, he's different.

There is rationale for having him on there.

I think at the end of the day, these guys are going to have to figure out, all right, we're going to have to employ again this incredibly expensive thing that every other media

employs and people.

And just it's either on or it isn't.

But labeling it, kind of truth meters.

I don't know if that works.

Yeah.

I just did a good podcast with Carol Cadwalleter

who wrote the Cambridge Analytics story.

She's from The Guardian here in London.

And one of the things she was saying is, look, in Germany, apparently one of seven people of the Facebook content manager deal with Germany because there's laws in Germany.

that say they can't put stuff up.

She goes, why don't they just hire more people and pay them well and give them good psychological help and et cetera, et cetera.

Make them employees.

They can do it.

They do it in Germany.

And so it's a question of whether they want to do it, how much it costs, and if they're forced to do so.

And I think forced is the only way this is going to happen.

Yeah, I enjoyed your pivot last week with Casey.

I think that is really interesting reporting.

And by the way, I realize that it's passive-aggressive to always have guests on with great hair.

Let's be honest.

I don't know why you're angry at me, but stop it.

I thought he's done some really interesting work around the PTSD that those guys are observing.

Yeah, absolutely.

He does have great hair.

And, you know, it's just the way it is.

I see

something, which then

stepped in to shut you down as as you saw you want to talk about a guy scared yeah when kathy griffin kind of addressed me in an aggressive way i never even thought about kathy griffin before i'm like oh my god i am so scared of this person right now well casey is her day now that's what she says so oh god she's smarter and funnier than me i just want to stay out of her way you stay out of her way you're gonna have dinner with her don't worry you always say that

there you go against about this from my producer Erica Anderson, who actually used to work at Twitter as well as Google, saying saying they don't want to set a wrong precedent on the Twitter rules.

What if the next president is a good one and people want to take him down?

They are taking a longer-term view.

Yeah, right.

Long-term view.

Speaking of long-term view, did you hear Mark Zuckerberg's comments at the Aspen Festival?

Yes, I did.

Or the Aspen Ideas Festival.

What did you think?

I just, I can't.

I can't even.

You can't?

It's just, it's just like blaming everybody else.

I just wish you would take responsibility.

It's really a small thing I ask of him.

And it's just, it's constantly someone else's fault and someone else's to fix.

What do you think?

Well, again, these are the masters.

And you got to admire, there is a form of genius here that kind of the deflect and delay.

And that is, you know, we need help here.

There's clearly a problem to address.

So we're going to create this star chamber-like council of people to advise us.

And it reminds me of occasionally, occasionally, my wife gets so fed up with the kids and so exhausted.

And they come up to her and say, can we play video games?

And she finally goes, ask your father.

And then they ask me and I say, sure.

And then she gets angry.

So she's tired enough to suggest that they ask me something and then I'm always wrong.

Yeah.

This is the mother of all ask your fathers from Facebook.

They're all, we'd rather not take responsibility.

We want to delay and deflect.

So we're going to create some bullshit council, which, by the way, on 60 seconds notice, Mark Zuckerberg could dissolve the moment he doesn't like what they decide.

But it's an attempt to create sort of a bulletproof or somewhat of a bulletproof S that says, oh, I see this is a problem.

So I'm going to create a council.

It'll take six months to figure out the rules.

Let's get on it.

This is just more delay.

Let's get on it.

That'd be fun.

It'd be more, it would just, this is just, again, more delay and obfuscation.

But wouldn't it be fun if we were on there?

We could just like torture them all day long with like sense and stuff like that.

It was interesting, but I do think it's getting through to people.

One of my sons, I'm not going to say which one because he doesn't like being mentioned, the one who doesn't like being mentioned,

he saw that

he had a lot of videos, and he was like, it's so screwed up.

How do they treat them after

putting them?

And he was like videos of brutality killing animals and children it's so messed up facebook messes up and messes up again and trying to fix it they're incompetent on every level even google isn't this bad and that's saying something that's my son which who never says anything so you can be affected when you read and recognize what's happening here so just saying we get through to people scott we matter anyway let me go to the the sponsor and then we'll come back and talk about wins and fails and scott's predictions

avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start?

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them.

But it's not just person to person, it's the same connection that's needed in business.

And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections.

But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.

According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

Scott, wins and fails.

Go.

Wins and fails.

Okay, so my

win is the IPOs of the Real Real and Revolve.

Yeah.

Tell me why.

It's nice to see.

Well, it's nice to see a couple of e-commerce companies punching through.

The Real Real is, I think, a fantastic example of organic intelligence, and that is using highly trained individuals that are, I don't know if they're well paid, but I think they're adequately paid.

They come into your house, they assess your closet, and it's a luxury positioning.

And if there's a theme in e-commerce that's working, whether it's Chewy or Zalando, it's going after the brands that don't want to use Amazon as distribution.

So the Real Real is this essentially incredible company that takes advantage of another trend, and that is monetizing fallow assets.

Cards are utilized only 4% of the time, so Uber stepped into that void.

Airbnb stepped into the void of apartments monetizing them when you're not there.

And Real Real has figured out a way to monetize

probably hundreds of billions of dollars of not only just clothes, but high-end fallow assets.

It's interesting because I posted the email, Julie Wainwright, who I've known since she covered Real.com.

I think I knew her at Berkeley Systems.

She's been through a lot of failed companies.

She was at Berkeley Systems and then Real.com, which is a

big watching company, which had the right idea at the wrong time.

And then obviously Pets.com, which had the right idea at the wrong time.

And she, you know, she took that public.

It was a big mess.

And then she kind of was on the outs.

And I remember seeing her right after, and she was quite like, oh, what a mess.

And then came up with this idea and sent me an email about it in 2011.

And I thought it was a brilliant idea at the time, given how many clothes there were.

But she's really, they really take it at this idea.

And you're right, fallow things.

Even more so, besides reusing these, these are beautiful clothing.

This is often high-level jewelry and clothing.

Is I just was with a bunch of millennial women and they all rent their clothes now, especially the nice ones, but all of them, and they're very getting into the idea of renting their clothes.

Like they get four or five outfits.

I think it's rent the runway has this new thing where you can pay for it.

I think that's fascinating, the renting of everything pretty much.

Yeah, it is.

And it's overcoming this traditional kind of, you know, it used to be sort of verbatim or out-of-fat, you know, the notion of wearing someone else's clothes.

So people are getting over that.

And you get about 60%, I think, or maybe it's a little bit more if you take store credit.

The stock popped 40% on the first day.

And also, thank you for bringing up Julie because, and I think there's a lesson here, and that is if you have a failure like Pets.com, it's pretty easy to get stuck and never recover from that.

And she kind of success is really your resilience, you know, your perseverance over your failure, or another way, your resilience.

And clearly, this woman individual has a lot of resilience because she must have been laughed out of a lot of venture capital offices showing up and saying, hi, I'm the former CEO of Pets.com.

So good for her because it's an incredible company.

Revolve, the other one does a really interesting job with private label at the high end.

Their price point is really high and they've great margins.

What's interesting about them is they figured out a way to make money despite the fact that their return rate is 52%,

which I thought was the most staggering statistic in the prospectus.

But that's an interesting company that's launched a lot of their own private label brands.

They have incredible data set, and it's just what I would call just behind the curve.

So most high-end fashion brands try to be ahead of the curve and say our merchant is a visionary and setting the tone.

And then Amazon is well behind the curve, looking at what's sold best for the last seven or eight years and then propping that up to the top of the recommendation.

The Revolve has done a great job of taking data and being just behind the curve, and that is they break down the components of an item that's being purchased, whether it's large buttons or a certain color, and then use that to inform the merchandising strategy.

And they have a very flexible, agile supply chain, including manufacturing in Los Angeles and in China.

And they're able to bring forward really sort of trend-on

merchandising.

They buy this stuff six months in advance and then lose them.

You know what I mean?

Like lose if they make the wrong choice.

Yeah, they do.

So two companies breaking through at the high end, the place that Amazon has not been able to dominate.

So those are my wins revolve in the real real.

Fantastic.

I do think clothing is going to be really interesting going forward.

I feel like

it really does start to begin to be like an OOB or like a rental.

A lot of rental things.

I had the CEO of Pearson talking about how there's no textbooks.

Everything's going to be rented.

Not actual textbooks, but digital things.

It was interesting.

I think my win was the Wayfair walkout, which employees walked out of Wayfair.

Who had been selling beds to immigrant detention camps on the border.

In the response, the company donated $100K to charity, but everyone's still mad.

And so now I like the idea that millennials are funding back.

I don't know if it'll be effective, if it'll get traction, but I like the concept of it, that this CEO was caught completely unawares.

And these people, we don't want to sell to this, what's going on there.

And obviously the fail is the Customs and Border Patrol Facebook page that is so vile.

It's disgusting.

It's disgusting.

And I can't believe I'm paying the salaries of the people who were posting on this site because they don't deserve to work.

They don't deserve my money and they don't deserve taxpayers' money for having these opinions.

You can't hate the people that you're charged with protecting.

You really are dealing with.

The things they said about immigrants were disgusting.

And then, of course, the attacks on congresspeople were scary and violent and strange, even if it's just sort of blowing off steam on Facebook.

And I think Facebook should dump this group.

Like, it's just, it's a hate group, is what it is.

Yeah, not just labeling.

It's not meant to, you know, talk about problems at work, which everybody has.

Everyone has gripes at work.

But these gripes, the stuff that ProPublica, which did this story, put out, it's just appalling.

And it's appalling that it's not taken down immediately, I think.

So I thought that was.

And I think if the Republicans don't look into this, it'll just be, you know, what has happened to this party because it's really no government employee should be able to express these opinions about the people that they're charged with dealing with.

It just is not.

And especially Congresspeople, too.

Anyway, those are my wins and fails.

Do you have a fail?

Yeah, you covered a lot there, but the detention facilities, I mean, some people have compared them to concentration camps, and I don't think that's fair.

What happened to Treblinka and Sobibor and Auschwitz was a different ballgame, but they are detention centers, and I feel as if we're in the land of frequent spills right now, and that is this beautiful carpet called capitalism and democracy in America.

We're constantly creating new stains on this thing, and one of those stains is happening right now.

Those detention facilities down at the border are shameful, and our kids are going to be really embarrassed.

Would you call them internment camps?

These words are fascinating.

Yeah, is it internment?

Is it a detention?

I mean, it does feel, they do feel like internment camps, right?

Where they are holding people against their will.

The conditions are a lot of their basic dignity and human freedoms.

And this comes down to resources and a certain level of humanity that we are not demonstrating at the border.

It's really

one of those things you know in three, five, ten years, twenty years, we're going to just be really ashamed that we let this happen.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: You know, ironically enough,

I took my son to the Anne Frank House this week in Amsterdam, which

it really affected him.

It was great.

I took a picture of the power of the power.

He was coming back from a European trip.

And I think I was really glad for them to see this.

This small story, obviously, Anne Frank, is a small story of one person, but she really has touched people all over the globe with the books and what happened to her in Amsterdam.

And so it was really interesting.

What was fascinating to me when I was there is they don't allow photography in it, in the place, because it's still the same house where these people were hiding for two years before the Nazis found them and took them away and they died at concentration camps.

But not one person around the whole place, and all over Europe, everyone's with the phones.

It's the same, the same disease they have in the United States.

But in this one area of Amsterdam, nothing, not one phone, not one, you know, it was really wonderful, actually, that people could pick their heads up for a minute and pay attention to a very serious problem that we have today and have always had.

And it was kind of cool.

That was a win.

Yeah.

So my fail,

my fail is the Democratic Party.

I think the debates were

great spectator sport.

Obviously, winners, Senator Harris and Senator Warren.

But I think the Democratic Party actually became less appealing to the majority of the voters we need in the middle to get Trump out of office.

And that is...

So as a progressive who considers himself

a lifelong Democrat, but who's also a white heterosexual male that doesn't speak Spanish and doesn't believe that illegal immigrants should all have a path to citizenship, I felt like basically the debate said, we're not your party.

And I think when they all raised their hand and said, should every undocumented worker have a path to citizenship, I just thought that was ridiculous.

There are so many people, including my parents, who figured out a way to get here legally.

And I'm not saying that someone who's been here for 10 or 20 years, who has been a decent contributor, who has kids here, should be deported.

But the notion that we're going to say anybody who figures out a way to get here should have a path to citizenship is just an invitation to the billion or two billion people who would like to live in the U.S.

And it also says to Americans and people who have immigrated here legally that, you know, we don't represent you anymore.

And I think that they're heading down a dangerous path.

And there needs to be some nuance here.

We invited 10 or 11 million undocumented workers.

It was basically a flexible, inexpensive workforce for us.

We knew they were coming over.

They should be treated differently.

But to basically say anybody who figures out a way to get here is going to be a citizen, that's just dumb and inviting an immigration crisis, the likes of which we can't even imagine.

So it felt to me like they were basically saying to the people in the middle, we don't represent you.

And I think they're headed down a very dangerous path.

All right.

Well, we'll see what happens with that.

So let's get to predictions or your forecast, the Scotts 101 forecast.

So is that your prediction?

Is that that's going to be a problem or do they have an ability to recover?

Oh, it's still early.

And they all go hard left or hard right in the primaries, and then they all pivot to the center in the general election.

But they've got to realize that the folks in the middle, and it's not Twitter.

I don't think it's the people who are best on Twitter at the far left that are going to win this election.

Now, granted, they need to energize the base, but the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle.

And what we saw at the Democratic debate was that, in my view, again, the people that they need to win over, they're saying, we don't really represent you any longer.

So I hope we see some centers candidates emerge with a voice that's more indicative of where the majority of Americans are.

So anyways, two predictions.

My prediction is political.

Basically, Sanders, I tweeted that what are the two consumer brands that are going to lose the most share over the next 30 days?

It's going to be Lacroix.

The sparkling water is getting its butt kit by bubbly a Pepsi brand, which is kind of, I realize it's a little bit esoteric.

But this is the way my mind works.

I love Lacroix.

Don't talk.

I love coconut.

Lacroix.

Oh, no.

Lacroix is hemorrhaging market share.

But also Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

I think that America is going to decide we don't want to replace, and this is a terrible identity politics and aegis, but I do think that America has decided that Bernie's time is kind of come and gone, in my view.

And I don't think that Joe Biden, the third term of Obama, is going to have a ton of appeal.

I think that their combined share of 50 or 60 points is going to decline 20 or 30 points, and we're going to see a new crop.

of nominees or contenders emerge.

And it's already happening with Sanders.

It's interesting.

My boyfriend, George Conway, as you know, he's my boyfriend, was saying that the Democrats that's

that's an image oh my god

okay I'd pay good money to watch watch that relationship unfold he was saying and I think he made a very salient point that Democrats tend to win when it's a young fresh person versus an older person all the older people lose which is interesting I know that's ages but that's what his point was correct if you kick out a president after only one term in a good economy it's got to be for something totally different in almost every dimension and so Marianne Williamson is

there we go.

I love it.

I thought she, by the way, most searched person.

I don't got no problem with Marianne Williamson.

I don't got no problem.

Most searched person on Google during the debate.

She got more search volume than anybody.

Everyone's like, wait, who is this?

Who's this?

What is going on here?

What did she just say?

Yeah, exactly.

You know, the DNC has decided after trying to railroad or jam Hillary Clinton down everyone's throat that basically the primary was nothing but an attempt to kind of pretend that they weren't supporting hillary clinton they've decided they've gone the other way and they're letting total whack jobs on the debate stage i mean there's just no reason for her to be on the debate stage

i'm gonna put her on podcast i'm trying to get her for my podcast i totally want to i can see that i can see that i think conway's a better grab though i know i'm trying i keep i'm trying to find what i what i find more disturbing you in a romantic relationship

i know i shouldn't i know all my left-wing friends are like how dare you but i just think he's very sharp i think he's sharp i can like a couple of things i'm trying to i'm trying to decide what's more disturbing the image of you in a romantic relationship with George Conway or him in a romantic relationship with Kellyanne Conway, his wife.

I find both of those things really radical.

Let's go away.

As usual, you bring it down to sex when

you're talking about.

That's our C-SPAN channel.

I mean, famous politicians making out.

I would pay good money for that.

I would pay good money for that.

And if you cancel, you have to watch Mitch McConnell and Michelle Bachman make out.

If you cancel, that's what happens to you.

Scott.

Don't go all London on me.

This is very British.

You're going down the British lane of like crazy.

I am so excited.

You're in London during world-class soccer.

That is an amazing time to be there.

Life is so rich, Kara.

Enjoy it.

How do you know?

I'm going to Boston then.

I'm going to Vermont.

I'm going to Vermont for the 4th of July.

What are you doing for the 4th of July?

You're not going to be able to do that.

Vermont for the 4th.

Presumably nobody is except for the base.

I am, as always, embarrassingly without plans.

I don't have any plans.

I'm going to probably work.

I've been away, so I need to work this entire week.

The 4th of July?

You should go.

You really need to do it.

This is awful, doesn't it?

You need to see some tanks.

I can't believe he's bringing you a message.

Oh, we're having a military parade.

That's right.

That's right.

Hell, tanks.

I just, I don't even want to.

I just, whatever.

Anyway.

Eisenhower, one of my heroes, said you should never have a military parade.

We should celebrate our independence and our courage, but not with the industrial military complex.

Well, I'll be in D.C.

next week after it's all over.

In any case, Scott, I will see you soon because you'll be in D.C.

You're coming down to D.C.

Wait a second.

We're going to see each other in a week.

Yeah, I'm a little bit intimidated, and I appreciate you and your fabulous friends hosting a thing for me, but they called me and said, who do you want to invite?

I don't have a single friend in D.C.

My invitation list is zero.

Bring you the people.

And if George Conway is listening, you are totally invited.

Leave Callie Ann at home, but you are invited.

I'll actually bring Callie Ann.

I like it.

Bring the Corgi's, George.

Bring the Conways.

Come on over, Conways.

Anyway, it's a party for Scott.

I'm not inviting anybody else online, but we're having a book party for Scott, and then we're going to tape our show.

And I actually also have a podcast with your friend, Michael Bennett.

Senator Bennett.

Yeah, nice guy.

I'm counting on you.

He's the man.

He's the man.

Make him look good, Kier.

Actually, he'll make himself look good.

He's smart.

He's smart.

I can't watch it for my dad, is what I'm doing.

Anyway, we.

Well, hold on.

Quick moment of the debate.

What about his moment where he said a medieval wall isn't the symbol that immigrants should see?

It should be the statue of liberty.

And he talked eloquently about

his mother-in-law, who was separated from her parents during the Holocaust.

I thought that was the most powerful moment of the debate.

He also had a very powerful moment with Joe Biden saying, Your deal with Mitch McConnell sucked.

And it was so smart.

He did it so smart.

He is a smart person and should have some cabinet position in a Democratic administration.

He would be an asset to the United States of America in any kind of leadership capacity.

Word, my sister, now you're speaking my language.

I still don't have the man crush you do.

Anyway, Scott, I'll see you next week in D.C.

We're going to go around.

We're going to do some things.

Maybe we'll go wander by the White House.

I don't know.

We'll see.

Anyway, Camilla Salazar produced our show today.

Nishad Kirwa is Pivot's executive producer.

Thanks also to Eric Johnson and Erica Anderson.

Thanks for listening to from Vox Media.

We'll be back next week from DC with another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Make sure you're subscribed to the show on Apple Podcasts, tune in, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

And if you like this week's episode, which you already do, leave us a review.

This month on Explain It to Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well.

Collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pureleaf.

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time.

In the car,

gym,

even sleeping.

So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight and hotel on Expedia to see them live.

She saved so much, she got a seat close enough to actually see and hear them.

Sort of.

You were made to scream from the front row.

We were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.