Fish and Chips and Biden and Harris and Reddit and Twitter

Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

Scott Galloway: Hola, Kara, ¿dónde está usted? Because as a white heterosexual male mangling the Spanish language, I think that qualifies me to run for president.

Kara Swisher: That sounds great. You sound better than Beto, your boyfriend, Beto, who really screwed up.

Scott Galloway: Oh, Beto.

Kara Swisher: I'm in London right now. I just had a delicious lunch of fish and chips, which were fantastic. It's the only thing I hope these people in London can do well because I hope they lose at soccer. Sorry to say, even though I can't stand sports, I do like this game because it's being helmed by my lesbian icon, Megan Rapinoe.

Scott Galloway: Thank you. Your lycon, as I call her? Your lycon?

Kara Swisher: Lycon, yeah. She's part of the militia. She's our general.

[Discussion continues]

Kara Swisher: Let's talk about the topics this week. I'm here in London just to do 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 is a big thing. I think it's tonight, the US team is playing the British team, and it's the big time for women's soccer. It's all over Twitter and all over the internet, especially because of its captain Megan Rapinoe's fight with Trump, who then fought back. Thoughts on this? What's going on?

Scott Galloway: Well, first off, I think you're blessed to be in a European city in the midst of a world-class football match. It really is an amazing experience. I was in London for the World Cup last year. London, by the way, second best city in the world, a wonderful city. To be there with a big match, especially with one of their teams... I don't know where you're going, but the Europeans really do soccer right. It's just a ton of fun to see the city come alive. Anyways, I think it's great.

Kara Swisher: I'm going to a bar where I hope to get beat up by British people after we win. That's my plan. That's my big plan for the day.

Scott Galloway: That's an image. I feel sorry for them.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, me too. So look, the controversy here is obviously the discrepancy, the pay gap.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. And the question I have, and I'm generally asking this to learn, not to comment because I don't know the answer. In the 90s and the 2000s, Julia Roberts was the highest paid actor in the world because she generated the largest box office receipts. 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. She helped start a movement to change that. But 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?

Kara Swisher: I think generating interest in it is important. This team, as the last team... I think it was 25 years ago? The last team that generated a lot of attention. It was a different time from a media perspective, from an internet perspective. It would be interesting to see what happens, especially if this US women's team wins, how much that will change things. Obviously the world is interested in soccer, whether it's men's or women's. But in the US, the interest in soccer has waxed and waned. In a different media environment, which includes the use of the internet, which Captain Megan Rapinoe and other players use, it'll be interesting to see how much attention they can get, how much watching, and how much pays for broadcasting. I think it all links into how much broadcasting pays for these things.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, it's all about TV. TV is what generates the majority of the revenue. But at the end of the day, both are great teams. It's fantastic that we have somebody who's a great spokesperson for America and for the team. Go, America. I think it's incredibly exciting and inspiring and just fun to watch.

Kara Swisher: All right. So we're here doing it slightly earlier because of the Fourth of July. We usually tape on Thursdays for Fridays, but we're taping a little bit early. I'll be on a plane tomorrow back to the US so I can go to Trump's victory party on the mall, which used to be called the Fourth of July. Actually, I'm not going to Washington. But one of the things that got a lot of attention this week besides his trip to North Korea was the debates. Everyone wants us to talk about the debates. I'd love to get your take on what you think went down.

Scott Galloway: Well, we make a lot of predictions, and we made a couple of political predictions I think seven and four weeks ago. 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, were going to cede to Beto and Michael Bennett, who I'm a big fan of. That has not happened.

Kara Swisher: You actually felt that... I know you're a fan of Kamala Harris.

Scott Galloway: Yes.

Kara Swisher: And you were early and right on this.

Scott Galloway: Thank you. She has come on like a freight train. She was a big winner coming out of this. Elizabeth Warren too. So we were right on the ageism part. We were wrong on the sexism part. The two frontrunners, if you think of momentum as a frontrunner, and I think at this point momentum is even more important than your number, the two candidates with the most momentum are kind of substance. Elizabeth Warren, Professor Warren, which is awesome to see in academia actually offering substance as a means of gaining traction and progress. And then Senator Harris, who wasn't afraid to take on Biden. 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.

Kara Swisher: A hundred percent. It was interesting because it looked like a big setup that he didn't see it coming. That was 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. What was great about that debate is they had these moments you could pull out. 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. She's done it before in hearings where she attacks Kavanaugh or whoever, because she's a prosecutor. She's very good at those moments. Then adding in a little bit of a meme around "that little girl was me" added to it. I know it sounds cooked, but you have to think about that when you're making anything today, when you're making ads or whatever. She effectively did that. He was caught flat-footed on a topic he should have known was coming from someone on that stage. Obviously she would be the obvious person to do it. But she did it super effectively, very pithy, very fast, a lot of meme generated. Whoever choreographed that for her really understood the internet to me. They really understood how to make that into a bigger deal than it might have been before.

Scott Galloway: 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 short-form media. The lesson I didn't learn until a few years ago in general communication strategy is: one, you have to have a series of talking points. Regardless of the question they ask you, you blurt out those talking points. It's that old adage, you answer the question you want to ask. 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 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 playing not to lose at this point, and that's never a winning strategy. 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 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.

Kara Swisher: Absolutely. I think it'll be interesting. One of the complaints about her is, especially in this age, and I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does this well, Trump does this well, she's got to come across as a person, even though she is a person—a warmer person. "That little girl was me" was perfect, dead perfect. And it was also true, which helped the situation. But what was interesting is the backlash to it was equally used against her, which was that she's not an American black, which was started. I'm sure the Russians started it. I'm almost certain the Russians started that. The idea that she was less than black, less than African-American, and then Trump retweeted it. The attacks were immediate. As many Democratic candidates called out, they were racist and misogynistic, both at the same time. It's interesting to see how quickly the Trump groups organized under—it's all run by Brad Parscale as far as I'm concerned—how quickly they respond to things and how quickly he got on Kamala Harris. "She's not so good." He switched really quickly. They're very good at that. It's going to be like that throughout this campaign: 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?

Scott Galloway: Well, what Senator Harris has to show—and Senator Warren has demonstrated—is that they can both clap back. 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 it apart. She is very good on her feet.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. So is Pete Buttigieg, your favorite guy.

Scott Galloway: Oh yeah.

Kara Swisher: He got to talk about... After you left Beto, I just want to say I think that's a little cold of you, but move along.

Scott Galloway: Well, Kara, I'm a whore, but I'm an expensive whore. I'm a Four Seasons whore. Anyways, I don't know what that has to do with Pete Buttigieg. I'm going to switch to him 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 think. Anyway, he's getting back in advertising and his whole thing is to be quick and twitchy and new and young. I don't know if you had any thoughts on this given your area in media, but it was interesting. He used to obviously run WPP, left under a lot of controversy. Any thoughts on that?

Kara Swisher: So I know Sir Martin and I like him a lot. I don't see him on a regular basis, but I think he changed the world of advertising. He was basically fired. I don't think he was fired for anything.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, it was. He was supposedly fired for... but then they didn't back it up.

Kara Swisher: 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 a difficult man. How are you still working, Scott?

Scott Galloway: 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 my Latino brothers and sisters.

Kara Swisher: You can't quit him.

Scott Galloway: Oh, come on. He's dreamy. That hair, that throat, he runs a lot. He's done. He's finished. The guy's got to have 2% body fat. Just like Game of Thrones, he's finished. 2% body fat. Anyway, go ahead. Move along about Martin Sorrell.

Kara Swisher: So Sir Martin... you don't want to bet against Sir Martin. I think the company you're talking about is Media Monks.

Scott Galloway: Yes, that's it. Out of Amsterdam.

Kara Swisher: Amsterdam. He's already started a company, a platform. He's already taken it public. You've got to respect the guy who's in his 70s who gets kind of drawn and quartered in the public eye and says, "You know what? Fuck that. I'm a gangster. I'm coming back." I like that at his age. By the way, he had a kid at 71 or 72. This is a guy who looks in the mirror and sees a guy that's just past 31 or 32. It was interesting. If you meet him, he's incredibly sharp, incredibly vibrant. I think 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. It was probably a good learning moment for him. But Sir Martin, you don't want to bet against him.

Scott Galloway: Well, you know, Rashid Tabakawala at Publicis certainly did. He was like, "He's old, late, whatever. He's old news." Which is interesting. So what do you think is the new news? Is this idea of going after these kinds of things like Media Monks a good idea in advertising now? Do you have to... he built up the modern ad agency and now that seems like a lumbering giant.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, I don't think it's a great strategy because essentially the strategy of IPG, WPP, and Publicis was they took lumpy, human-centered businesses that weren't financeable. 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. Because they pooled a group of lumpy assets, they were able to smooth out the earnings and create an institutional class asset. 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. He pioneered that entire notion and construct. The basic model for the last 30 years was they would come in and buy a company like my first company, Profit Brand Strategy, a brand strategy firm. We had term sheets from all of them at some point in our history. They buy you at 8 to 10 times. Then the marketplace gives WPP 12 to 16 times EBITDA. So it's basically an arbitrage deal. There aren't that many buyers of these companies because they're very volatile, very human-centric. He figured out a way to make them investable classes. Three big players emerged, or four: IPG, Omnicom, Publicis, and WPP. What I think you're going to see is a good bank, bad bank breakup of these companies. Some of these companies have great assets. WPP has some great assets that are high growth, digitally centered. 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. I think the disposition of some of these assets will be accretive because typically what happens in a conglomerate structure is the marketplace finds the shittiest part of the business and assigns that multiple to the entire thing. So where you have some incredible businesses at WPP, they all get assigned the same shitty multiple of a communications business. So you're going to end up with a good bank, bad bank split of a lot of these companies. Investment bankers are going to make a lot of money.

Scott Galloway: Which ones are good and which ones are bad?

Kara Swisher: Well, I forget... Xaxis at WPP, I forget the name. Xaxis is a data company. I'm mangling again. But there are some digital assets within all of these companies that are really strong. Publicis has Sapient Nitro, which is an outstanding digital agency. It would probably trade at a higher multiple, although they acquired it three years ago. If they spun it out again, it would probably be accretive to shareholders. So you're about to see a deconglomeration across communications. I think Martin's strategy, and again, I don't like to bet against Martin—very few people have made money betting against Sir Martin—but I think the old conglomerate model of rolling up these companies, I think the arbitrage has been squeezed out because the best assets, 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. I don't think the conglomerate model moving forward works that well in communications. I think it's going to go the other way.

Scott Galloway: All right. Okay. So lastly, there are two things happening in social media related to Trump. Reddit quarantined the biggest pro-Trump section of the site last week for hosting violent threats and violating the site's policies. Separately, Twitter said it would start labeling tweets from public figures that break its rules but leave them up. So they're sort of slowly moving into dealing with it. But what do you think? I was just like, what? You're now going to label lies as lies? Or how are you going to do that? It just sort of created more problems. In terms of Reddit, I'm going to have Steve Huffman, who's the CEO, on the podcast soon. They've been doing a lot more. They haven't just quarantined. They've moved down ugly things really deep into the site a long time ago. 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? What's the response from these companies? If you can label something as a lie and not true, shouldn't you just delete it or prohibit it from ever being on your platform?

Kara Swisher: Exactly. It was interesting. It was sort of like how they slow-walked into the Alex Jones thing. I remember being in meetings with all these people, and I said, "You're taking them down." And they're like, "No, we're not. We're just a platform." But I'm like, "You're still taking them down. You'll see. It'll happen." It was really interesting how they clung to this until they didn't. This seems like the same thing. They're slow-walking this idea. I assume they're talking about Trump because he breaks his rules all the time. So what's going to be on it? Another lie? Another "here's the facts"? I don't know. Are they going to link to the actual picture? Are they going to go back and do ones because he's done hundreds and hundreds of them that are lies? That's what I wonder. What happens? I think they can't figure it out. The Washington Post has been doing this for two years and it's 10,000 lies, many of which are on Twitter. The quarantining that Reddit's doing seems smarter because it's violent threats and they just move it off. They did that to another horrible site, a racist site on that site. Even though there's tons of crap on Reddit, they certainly moved it to places that were hard to get to, in a back of a back drawer. I think that's the best many of them can do if they want to keep these open platforms. At the same time, I'm not sure why not 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.

Scott Galloway: I think this is a half measure that doesn't make any sense. These companies are coming to grips with the fact that they are media companies. They have to make judgment calls. But 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." They don't do that. They say, "All right, we're either putting stuff up we're going to stand behind or not." I don't understand the whole labeling thing. I do have some sympathy around people always using the president's tweets as an example. I've kind of come around to Twitter's view that he is a public figure. 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. 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 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.

Kara Swisher: Yeah. I just did a good podcast with Carol Cadwallader who broke the Cambridge Analytica story. She's from The Guardian here in London. One of the things she was saying is, look, in Germany, apparently one in seven of Facebook's content managers deal with Germany because there are 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? Make them employees." They can do it. They do it in Germany. It's a question of whether they want to do it, how much it costs, and if they're forced to do so. I think forced is the only way this is going to happen.

Scott Galloway: 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'd done some really interesting work around the PTSD that those guys are observing.

Kara Swisher: Yeah, absolutely. He does have great hair. And you know, it just is the way it is.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, there you go again. I saw your Twitter thing which then Kathy Griffin stepped in to shut you down, as you saw. You want to talk about a guy scared? Yeah. When Kathy Griffin 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."

Kara Swisher: Well, Casey is her day now. That's what she says.

Scott Galloway: Oh, God. She's smarter and funnier than me. I just want to stay out of her way.

Kara Swisher: You stay out of her way. We're going to have dinner with her. Don't worry.

Scott Galloway: You always say that. There you go again.

Kara Swisher: I also just got a text about this from my producer, Eric Anderson, who actually used to work at Twitter as well as Google, saying they don't want to set a wrong precedent on the Twitter rules. What if the next president is a good one and people want to take him down? They are taking a longer-term view.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, right. Long-term view. Speaking of long-term view, did you hear Mark Zuckerberg's comments at the Aspen Festival?

Kara Swisher: Yes, I did. At the Aspen Ideas Festival. What did you think?

Scott Galloway: I just... I can't. I can't even.

Kara Swisher: You can't?

Scott Galloway: It's just... he's just blaming everybody else.

Kara Swisher: I just wish he would take responsibility. It's really a small thing I ask of him. It's constantly someone else's fault and someone else's to fix. What do you think?

Scott Galloway: Well, again, these are the masters. You've got to admire there is a form of genius here, the deflect and delay. "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." It reminds me of occasionally, my wife gets so fed up with the kids and so exhausted, and they come up to her and say, "Can we play video games?" And she finally goes, "Ask your father." Then they ask me and I say, "Sure." Then she gets angry. So she's tired enough to suggest that they ask me something and then I'm always wrong. This is the mother of all "ask your fathers" from Facebook. "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." It's an attempt to create a bulletproof vest that says, "Oh, I see this is a problem. So I'm going to create a council. It'll take six months to figure out the rules."

Kara Swisher: Let's get on that council. Let's get on it. That'd be fun. Get on there. We could just torture them all day long with like scents and stuff like that. It's 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... I know which one that is. I met them both. He was like, "It's so screwed up how they treated them after putting them up." He was like, "Videos of brutality, killing animals and children. It's so messed up. Facebook messes up and messes up again and tries to fix it. They're incompetent on every level. Even Google isn't this bad, and that's saying something." That's my son, who never says anything. So you can be affected when you read and recognize what's happening. Just saying. We get through to people, Scott. We matter.

Scott Galloway: Anyway, let me go to the sponsor, and then we'll come back and talk about wins and fails and Scott's predictions.

Scott Galloway: 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.

Scott Galloway: Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn. From talking about sports to 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 one billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company roles, 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 pivotpod. That's linkedin.com slash pivotpod. Terms and conditions apply. Only on LinkedIn ads.

Scott Galloway: Scott, wins and fails. Go.

Kara Swisher: Wins and fails. Okay, so my win is the IPOs of the RealReal and Revolve.

Scott Galloway: Tell me why.

Kara Swisher: It's nice to see a couple e-commerce companies punching through. The RealReal is a fantastic example of organic intelligence. They use highly trained individuals who come into your house, assess your closet, and it's a luxury positioning. If there's a theme in e-commerce that's working, whether it's Chewy or Zolando, it's going after the brands that don't want to use Amazon as distribution. The RealReal takes advantage of another trend: monetizing fallow assets. Cars are utilized only 4% of the time. Uber stepped into that void. Airbnb stepped into the void of apartments. And RealReal has figured out a way to monetize hundreds of billions of dollars of high-end fashion.

Scott Galloway: 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 had the right idea at the wrong time. And then obviously Pets.com, which had the right idea at the wrong time. She took that public. It was a big mess. And then she kind of was on the outs. I remember seeing her right after, and she was quite like, "Oh, what a mess." And then she came up with this idea and sent me an email about it in 2011. I thought it was a brilliant idea at the time, given how many clothes there were.

Kara Swisher: You're right, fallow things. Even more so, besides reusing these, these are beautiful clothing. This is often very high-level jewelry and clothing. I just was with a bunch of millennial women, and they all rent their clothes now, especially the nice ones. They're very getting into the idea of renting their clothes. Like, they get four or five outfits. I think Rent the Runway has this new thing where you can pay for it. I think that's fascinating. The renting of everything.

Scott Galloway: Yeah, it is. And it's overcoming this traditional notion of wearing someone else's clothes. So people are getting over that. And you get about 60%, I think, or maybe 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 there's a lesson here. If you have a failure like Pets.com, it's pretty easy to get stuck and never recover from that. Success is really your perseverance over your failure, or another way, your resilience. Clearly this woman 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.

Scott Galloway: Revolve, the other one, does a really interesting job with private label at the high end. Their price point is really high and they have 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. They've launched a lot of their own private label brands. They have an incredible data set. Most high-end fashion brands try to be ahead of the curve and say our merchant is a visionary in setting the tone. Amazon is well behind the curve, looking at what's sold best for the last seven or eight years and then propping that up to the top of the recommendation. Revolve has done a great job of taking data and being just behind the curve. 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. They have a very flexible, agile supply chain, including manufacturing in Los Angeles and in China. They're able to bring forward trend-on merchandise that they translate to private label.

Kara Swisher: Which has always been an issue with the stuff six months in advance and then lose them if they make the wrong choice.

Scott Galloway: That's right. So two companies breaking through at the high end, the place that Amazon has not been able to dominate. Those are my wins, Revolve and The RealReal.

Kara Swisher: Fantastic. I do think clothing is going to be really interesting going forward. I feel like it really does start to become like an Uber, like a rental. A lot of rental things. I had the CEO of Pearson talking about how there's no textbooks. Everything's going to be rented, and not actual textbooks, but digital things. It was interesting.

Kara Swisher: I think my win was the Wayfair walkout. Employees walked out of Wayfair because they had been selling beds to immigrant detention camps on the border. In response, the company donated $100,000 to charity. But everyone was still mad. I like the idea that millennials are fighting back. I don't know if it'll be effective, if it'll get traction, but I like the concept of it. This CEO was caught completely unawares. And these people, we don't want to sell to this, what's going on there.

Kara Swisher: And obviously the fail is the Customs and Border Patrol Facebook page that is so vile. It's disgusting. I can't believe I'm paying the salaries of the people who were posting on this site. They don't deserve to work. They don't deserve my money and they deserve taxpayers' money for having these opinions. You can't hate the people that you're charged with protecting. The things they said about immigrants were disgusting. And then the attacks on Congress people were scary and violent and strange, even if it's just sort of blowing off steam on Facebook. I think Facebook should dump this group. It's a hate group is what it is.

Scott Galloway: Do you have a fail? Yeah, you covered a lot there. But the detention facilities, I mean some people have compared them to concentration camps. I don't think that's fair. What happened to Treblinka and Sobibor and Auschwitz was a different ballgame. But they are detention centers. And I feel as if we in the land of frequent spills right now. This beautiful carpet called capitalism and democracy in America is constantly creating new stains on it. 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.

Kara Swisher: Would you call them internment camps? These words are fascinating.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Is it internment? Is it detention? 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. This comes down to resources and a certain level of humanity that we are not demonstrating at the border. It's one of those things that in three, five, ten years, 20 years, we're going to be really ashamed that we let this happen.

Scott Galloway: Ironically enough, I took my son to the Anne Frank house this week in Amsterdam. It really affected him. It was great. It's very powerful. I was really glad for him to see this. This small story of one person, Anne Frank, has touched people all over the globe. What was fascinating to me when I was there is they don't allow photography 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. But not one person around the whole place, and all over Europe, everyone's with the phones. It's the same disease they have in the United States. But in this one area of Amsterdam, nothing, not one phone. It was really wonderful, actually, that people could pick their heads up for a minute and pay attention to a very serious problem. That was a win.

Kara Swisher: So my fail? My fail is the Democratic Party. I think the debates were a 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. As a progressive who considers themselves 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." 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. 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. It also says to Americans and people who have immigrated here legally that we don't represent you anymore. I think they're heading down a dangerous path. 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. It felt to me like they were basically saying to the people in the middle, "We don't represent you." I think they're headed down a very dangerous path.

Kara Swisher: All right. Well, we'll see what happens with that. So let's get to predictions or your forecast, the Scot's 101 forecast. So is that your prediction? Is that that's going to be a problem or do they have an ability to recover?

Scott Galloway: Oh, it's still early. 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. Granted, they need to energize the base, but the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. What we saw in the Democratic debate was that, in my view, the people that they need to win over, they're saying, "We don't really represent you any longer." So I hope we see some centrist candidates emerge with a voice that's more indicative of where the majority of Americans are.

Scott Galloway: Anyways, two predictions. My prediction is political. Basically, I tweeted that the two consumer brands that are going to lose the most share over the next 30 days are going to be La Croix and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. La Croix, the sparkling water, is getting its butt kicked by Bubbly, a Pepsi brand. I realize it's a little bit esoteric, but this is the way my mind works, Kara. I love La Croix.

Kara Swisher: Don't talk. I love coconut. La Croix?

Scott Galloway: La Croix 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. This is terrible identity politics and ageism, but I do think that America's decided that Bernie's time is kind of come and gone. 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. It's already happening.

Kara Swisher: Right. It's interesting. My boyfriend, George Conway, as you know, he's my boyfriend, was saying that Democrats tend to win...

Scott Galloway: That's an image. That's an image. Oh, my God. I'd pay good money to watch that relationship unfold.

Kara Swisher: 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. I know that's ageist, but that's when his point was correct. If you kick out a president after only one term in a good economy, it's got to be for something totally different on almost every dimension. So Marianne Williamson it is.

Scott Galloway: There we go. I thought she was great. By the way, most searched person on Google during the debate. She got more search volume than anybody. Everyone's like, "Wait, who is this? What is going on here? What did she just say?"

Kara Swisher: Yeah, exactly. 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 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. There's just no reason for her to be on the debate stage.

Scott Galloway: I don't know. I'm going to put her on my podcast. I'm trying to get her for my podcast. I totally want to talk to her.

Kara Swisher: I can see that. I can see that. I think Conway is a better grab, though.

Scott Galloway: I know. I'm trying. I find what I find more disturbing. I like everything he does because I think he's really funny. I know I shouldn't. I know all my left-wing friends are like, "How dare you?" But I just think he's very sharp.

Kara Swisher: I think he's sharp. I can like it. I'm trying to decide what's more disturbing, the image of you in a romantic relationship with George Conway or him in a romantic relationship with Kellyanne Conway, his wife. I find both of those things really rattling.

Scott Galloway: Let's go away. As usual, you bring it down to sex when I'm only talking about—

Kara Swisher: That's our C-SPAN channel. Famous politicians making out. 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 Galloway: Don't go all London on me. This is very British. You're going down the British lane of crazy stuff behind the scenes. I am so excited you're in London during world-class soccer. That is an amazing time to be there. Life is so rich, Kara. Enjoy it. Have some beer.

Kara Swisher: 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? Because you're not going to the Trump thing.

Scott Galloway: 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.

Kara Swisher: The 4th of July? You really should go down to the Trump thing because you need to see some tanks. I can't believe he's bringing tanks.

Scott Galloway: Oh, we're having a military parade. That's right. What the hell? Tanks? I don't even want to. I just don't. 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.

Kara Swisher: 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.

Scott Galloway: 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 was zero.

Kara Swisher: We will bring you the people. And if George Conway is listening, you are totally invited. Leave Kellyanne at home, but you are invited.

Scott Galloway: We'll actually bring Kellyanne. I like it. Bring the corgis, George. Bring the Conways. Come on over, Conways.

Kara Swisher: 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.

Scott Galloway: Yeah. Nice guy. I'm counting on you.

Kara Swisher: He's the man. He's the man. Make him look good.

Scott Galloway: Actually, he'll make himself look good. He's smart. I thought, by the way. I auditioned for my dad is what I'm doing. Anyway.

Kara Swisher: Well, hold on. Quick moment of the debate. What about his moment where he said a medieval wall isn't a symbol that immigrants should see? It should be the Statue of Liberty. And he talked eloquently about his mother-in-law who was separated from her parents during the Holocaust. I thought that was the most powerful moment of the debate. He also had a very powerful moment with Joe Biden saying your deal with Mitch McConnell sucked. And it was so smart. He did it so smart. He's a smart person and should have some cabinet position in a democratic administration. He would be an asset to the United States of America in any kind of leadership capacity.

Scott Galloway: Word, my sister. Now you're speaking my language. I still don't have the man crush you do.

Kara Swisher: 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.

Kara Swisher: Camila Salazar produced our show today. Nishad Kirwa is Pivot's executive producer. Thanks also to Eric Johnson and Erica Anderson. Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media. We'll be back next week from D.C. with another breakdown of all things tech and business. Make sure you're subscribed to the show on Apple Podcasts. Tune in or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you like this week's episode, which you already do, leave us a review.