Funny Business: Lessons From a Carrier Pigeon Publicity Stunt, LeBron's Big "Announcement" and the In-N-Out Lawsuit

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Help Wanted
Episode: Funny Business: Lessons From a Carrier Pigeon Publicity Stunt, LeBron's Big "Announcement" and the In-N-Out Lawsuit
Hosts: Jason Feifer (Entrepreneur Editor in Chief), Nicole Lapin (Money Expert)
Producer/Guest: Morgan (Producer)
Date: October 21, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this lively episode of Help Wanted, Jason and Nicole dive into the intersection of bizarre marketing stunts, brand reputation, and lessons for navigating your work and business life. Through a rapid-fire series of strange recent headlines—from PR stunts involving pigeons and LeBron James’ mysterious “announcement,” to lawsuits over both pointless jobs and fake fast food scandals—they extract key lessons about hype, credibility, influencer marketing, workplace fulfillment, and when brands should (or shouldn't) fight back.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Funny Business: Decoding Weird Marketing Headlines

(03:22–13:25)

Carrier Pigeon Cannabis PR Stunt

• Headline: A NY cannabis dispensary faked a viral campaign about delivering cannabis via pigeons with tiny backpacks. It was a PR bluff.
• Discussion: The team debates when, if ever, it's OK to bluff or use deception in marketing.
  • Jason: “The history of marketing is full of really excellent examples of people releasing something and getting great response on it and then revealing at some point that it’s not true. And that was fine. Like, everybody kind of likes the story. And I think as long as you’re straight with people, then it works.” (05:15)
  • Nicole: Questions whether it’s really that bad and jokes about the feasibility instead: “Pigeons are not controllable. There’s, like, the colloquialism, like, oh, send a carrier pigeon or whatever.” (04:48)
• Key takeaway: Transparency matters more than the stunt itself; being honest after the reveal is essential for brand trust.

DHL's Viral Not-Really-Real Stunt

• Example Used: Jason shares how an ad agency punked DHL’s rivals with a box that changed color revealing an anti-rival slogan. Turns out, DHL didn’t even commission it—agency did it aspiring to win them as a client, then released the video online anyway.
  • Quote: “DHL was totally open about it... And I think when people find out it’s not real, they don’t feel bad about DHL. They just remember the funny message delivery, that DHL is faster, and that incentivizes this kind of stuff.” (08:53)
• Debate: Nicole feels the agency deserved to be paid; Jason argues the viral exposure probably landed them clients anyway.
  • Nicole: "If they're going to go that crazy above and beyond... I feel like you should get compensated for that. I'm upset at you." (11:30)
• Lesson: Viral, playful fakery can feel fair as long as it's not harming or seriously misleading; sometimes, the agency benefits more than the client.

---

2. When Hype Turns to Clickbait: LeBron’s “Big Decision”

(13:34–24:51)

LeBron’s Fake-Out Decision

• Headline: LeBron James teased a “decision” announcement (echoing his famous team move in 2010), leading many to expect a team change. The reveal? An ad campaign for Hennessy.
• Discussion: The hosts weigh in on whether this kind of marketing “bait and switch” is fair or erodes trust.
  • Jason: “Are you adding or are you abusing? … In this case, you are abusing the trust and familiarity people have of this thing.” (15:37)
  • Calls it "short-sighted" to waste the “Decision card” on a generic endorsement: “I actually think that it’s really short sighted... He could have used that moment for something more significant in his life. Whatever Hennessy paid him isn’t possibly worth the money to him.” (23:41)
  • Nicole: Observes that influencer marketing is getting more desperate and stunts have to get wilder for the same reach due to market saturation: “It’s like a tolerance, right? ... You have to just keep upping it.” (18:53)
• Quote: “So the clickbait and switch.” (22:46, Nicole)
• Lesson: Exploiting genuine fan interest for a mere ad hurts audience trust. Marketing must feel additive, not manipulative.

---

3. Paying to Do Nothing: The French “Invisible Worker” Lawsuit

(26:03–34:48)

French Woman Sues for “Invisible” Years at Work

• Headline: French worker sues her former company after being paid for years for a role with no responsibilities, arguing it was demeaning.
• Discussion: The team explores meaning and value in work, and how employees can handle “invisible” jobs.
  • Jason: “You are involved in a transaction and you need to make sure that that transaction is good for you—not just now, but later too. One of the most short sighted things people can do is just take money to have a job that does not move them forward.” (28:10)
  • Nicole: “...Majority of it should be about money, because there is no shame in feeding yourself and taking care of yourself and your family. That’s what you should optimize for. ... This lady didn’t have to send feet photos.” (30:48)
• Anecdote: Jason shares of a friend who worked as a Starbucks barista long-term, declined promotions, and eventually started a photography business. The point—not everyone has to be career-oriented, but everyone should still protect their future employability.
• Lesson: Every job is a transaction—money versus growth. Don’t coast unless you’re building something for later, even if just skills for another path.

---

4. When Pranks Cross the Line: In-N-Out’s Defamation Battle

(35:21–39:16)

YouTuber Impersonates Employee, In-N-Out Sues

• Headline: A YouTuber dressed as an In-N-Out worker staged raunchy pranks (e.g., faking bugs/condoms in food) and posted online. The company sues for defamation.
• Discussion: Should brands engage with pranksters, or aggressively fight back?
  • Nicole: “It totally depends on what the prank is. ... With condoms and bugs in your food—yes, you can have humor and it can be kind of raunchy, but ... once you’re dealing with grossness in your food—I think you cross the line.” (36:39–37:09)
  • Jason: “In intellectual property law, everything comes down to the question of consumer confusion. ... If you’re a company and reputational damage is on the line, you need to act really aggressively because you’re not playing along with bugs in the food.” (37:09–39:14)
• Memorable Moment: Jason’s pun: “It’s all out, no in, on this.” (39:14)
• Lesson: Play along with harmless jokes (DHL prank), but always aggressively fight defamatory content that can harm customer trust.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Fake Marketing Stunts:
  • “As long as you’re straight with people, then it works.” – Jason (05:15)
• On LeBron’s Announcement:
  • “Are you adding or are you abusing?” – Jason (15:37)
  • “You have to just keep upping it. ... Like, no longer is one pill going to do anything—it’s going to have to be more.” – Nicole (18:48)
• On Jobs with No Purpose:
  • “You have to be constantly mindful of what the transaction is and to be thinking of it like a transaction every day.” – Jason (28:10)
  • “There is no shame in feeding yourself and taking care of yourself and your family. That’s what you should optimize for.” – Nicole (30:48)
• On Brand Protection:
  • “Reputational damage is on the line ... you’re not playing along with bugs in the food.” – Jason (38:34)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 03:22: Segment begins – Breaking down weird business news headlines.
• 04:07: Carrier pigeon PR stunt and debate on bluffing in marketing.
• 05:15: Jason on the ethics and history of marketing stunts.
• 08:53: Story of DHL’s viral fake ad and lessons from it.
• 13:34: LeBron’s ‘decision’ as deceptive hype – breaking down the backlash.
• 18:48: Nicole notes the “tolerance” required in modern marketing.
• 26:03: Shift to the French “invisible worker” lawsuit; work’s transactional value.
• 30:48: Nicole on money’s primacy and self-respect at work.
• 35:21: YouTuber’s In-N-Out prank; when brands should get aggressive.
• 39:14: Jason’s “It’s all out, no in, on this” pun wraps the segment.

---

Conclusion

This Help Wanted episode blends humor with insight, exploring just how far brands and individuals should go for hype, and where to draw the line between clever marketing and consumer manipulation. Through real-life oddities and smart analysis, Jason, Nicole, and Morgan offer memorable takeaways about credibility, trust, and self-advocacy—whether you’re running a business, an influencer campaign, or simply trying not to disappear in your day job.

Transcript

[A]

Let's be honest, traditional phone systems weren't built for how businesses work today. And when you miss a call, you're not just missing a conversation, you're losing business.

[B]

That's actually happened to me before. I missed a call from a partner I was working on and I've tried calling them back three times since and I can't reach them.

[A]

Oh, that's awful. Quo formerly OpenPhone is the number one business phone system that streamlines customer communications. Quo works through an app on your phone or computer so you can run your business from from anywhere.

[B]

Your team can share one number and collaborate on calls and texts. Just like a shared inbox, keeping response times fast and customers happy. Quo makes your phone system smarter with built in AI logging calls, creating summaries, and automating next steps. Its AI agent can even answer calls, qualify leads, and route customers to the right teammate so no customer is ever left hanging even after hours.

[A]

So useful whether you're a solo operator or leading a growth team. Quite a quo keeps you connected and helps you deliver standout customer experiences. Join over 90,000 businesses that are using Quo formerly OpenPhone. Get started free plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.com helpwanted.

[B]

That'S Q-U-O.com help wanted and if you have an existing number with another service, Quo will port them over at no extra charge. Quo no missed calls, no missed customers. Have you ever made a vision board? Have you ever made one for your money? Chime lets you make a vision board for your savings goals, which makes it easy. Having a visual nudge when you're making plans is so motivating. I was saving up to move one time and I kept a picture of my dream place on my lock screen so that every single time I picked up my phone and we know how much we do that, I saw the picture and that motivated me. It still took hard work and planning, but that visual representation really helped me stay on target. Chime makes it even easier. In your savings account, you can create a goal, give it a name and a fun little emoji. Then as you add money, you can watch the little circle fill up as you get closer and closer to achieving your goal of that vacation, new bag, even a new home, anything your heart desires. And that savings account and the Chime checking account come with one big green flag. They have no monthly fees or maintenance fees to delay your savings streams. Work on your financial goals through Chime today. Open your account in just two minutes at chime.com helpwanted that is chime.com helpwatted Chime feels like progress. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services and debit card provided by the bank or bank NA or Stride bank NA members, fdic Spot me. Eligibility requirements and overdraft limits apply. Timing depends on submission of payment file fees. Apply it out of network ATMs, bank ranking and number of ATMs, according to U.S. news and World Report. 2023 Chime checking account required.

[A]

This is Help Wanted, the show that makes your work work for you. I'm Jason Pfeiffer, editor in chief of.

[B]

Entrepreneur magazine, and I'm money expert Nic Laughing. On Tuesdays, Jason and I answer the helpline and help callers solve their work problems.

[A]

And on Thursdays, I give you one way to improve your work and build a career or company you love.

[B]

And it starts now.

[C]

Okay, Nicole, Jason, I have.

[A]

Okay. Morgan Morgan, producer of this podcast. Hello. Welcome. You've got things for us.

[C]

I do. I have some more funny business headlines, which I know both of you. It's your favorite segment that we do on Help Wanted. Isn't that right?

[A]

I do love this segment. This is where we. Well, traditionally, I think in other podcasts, they get a comedian, and then they tell that comedian news, and then the comedian tries to make it funny. But in this case, we do it in reverse because Nicole and I are not comedians, though sometimes we like to think we are. And so instead, you bring on kind of weird news, and then we try to extract actual lessons from it.

[C]

Exactly right. Okay.

[A]

Thank you.

[C]

Huzzah. Are you ready for your first funny business headline?

[A]

Let's hear it. What is happening in the news? That is weird.

[C]

Okay, number one, a New York cannabis dispensary rolled out a viral teaser campaign claiming they would use a fleet of 20 pigeons, each with tiny backpacks, to deliver cannabis. The catch? It was never real. It was all a PR stunt. So my question for you both is, when is it okay to bluff in marketing? How do you balance hype with credibility?

[A]

I'm surprised that that got big enough that it became news. I didn't hear about that. But having pigeons deliver pot, actually kind of surprised that nobody's done that yet. I guess it's just you can't control the pigeon. Yeah.

[B]

Pigeons are not controllable. There's, like, the colloquialism, like, oh, send a carrier pigeon or whatever. Yeah, I guess at some point in history, we've had pigeons send.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Useful things to other people. I don't know why they couldn't just try It. It's not animal cruelty to try to put, like, a small backpack on a pigeon and just, like, make good on the marketing.

[A]

No, actually, in fact, we haven't actually addressed Morgan's very interesting question about deceit in marketing. But let us just be clear. Fact check here on Help wanted. Nicole, you said pigeons are not trainable. ChatGPT completely disagrees with you. Pigeons are very trainable. It said, in fact, they've been studied and used in behavioral psychology for decades because they respond well to conditioning. So you could, in theory, train a pigeon to deliver your pots, should you so choose. So this actually sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for somebody to do instead of lying about it. I think the mistake is that they didn't actually train the pigeons. Like, they could have done it. Clearly it was possible to do this, so I think now it just sounds lazy. But to your. To your bigger question, the history of marketing is full of really excellent examples of people releasing something and getting great response on it and then revealing at some point that it's not true. And that was fine. Like, everybody kind of likes the story. And I think as long as you're straight with people, then it works. Let's see. Thinking of an example here is. Well, here. Here's something that's not exactly it, but that I have found to be a really interesting case study. So have you ever seen on the socials a video of dhl, the delivery company. Yes. Punking its rivals? No.

[C]

No.

[B]

It's really funny.

[A]

It's great. It's great. So the setup goes like this. DHL wanted to punk its rivals to. To. To play a trick on other competing delivery companies. So they developed this box, like a large box that would be delivered, like a very long, big one that, you know, would be hard to get down a street. And. And they covered it in this material that when refrigerated, becomes pitch black. So it just looks like a black box. But then when you take it out of a cold truck and you start delivering it, the material warms up and it reveals a bright yellow box that says DHL is faster. So then you have this UPS guy who is, like, struggling to get this box to where it's supposed to go as it slowly reveals the message. And DHL is faster and, like, random.

[B]

Hard places to deliver to, like us.

[A]

Winding staircase stairs and like, very crowded cities, streets. It's really clever. And when this came out, however many years ago it came out, it went super, super viral. And it continues to go viral today. You see it all the time. But here is what people did not know in the moment back then and now everybody has just simply forgotten about, which is that DHL didn't even make that and that never happened. Instead, that was a advertising agency's effort to get business from dhl. They came up with that on their own and DHL was aware of it at some point, and then DHL was not. According to dhl, DHL was not aware that the ad agency was going to put it on YouTube, but they did. So this ad agency creates this completely unauthorized, totally fake thing and, and then puts it on YouTube and it explodes. And DHL doesn't say anything for a couple days for whatever reason and then finally reveals that this was not actually made by dhl. And yet this is, I think, the important part of this story. And yet DHL did not ask to have it taken down because they said it's funny and people liked it. So they let it stay up and it now has its own life where it continues to resurface, go viral again. And at this point everybody just thinks that it's this clever thing that DHL did. And I, I think this is wonderful. Like this is. It's a funny story essentially that was told and nobody is being deceived. DHL was totally open about it. And I think that it's great that it's out there in the open. And I think when people find out that it's not real, they don't feel bad about dhl. They just remember the funny message delivery, that DHL is faster and that incentivizes this kind of stuff.

[B]

Although it makes me mad at dhl. Why did they pay the ad agency?

[A]

No, no, they had nothing to do with it.

[B]

I know, but like, why is the ad agency now just doing work?

[A]

No, no, no, no. DHL did not commission this.

[B]

No, I get it. But like, okay, I'm an ad agency and I'm going above and beyond to try to get somebody's business and I do all this stuff at, as a, like a very over the top pitch and spend my own money to do it. And then DHL uses it, but then doesn't pay me.

[A]

No, DHL didn't use it.

[B]

I mean, they didn't not use it. They didn't take it down.

[A]

Right. But they never put it up. It wasn't on their YouTube page.

[B]

Right. But they like benefited from it.

[A]

Let's say that, let's say that an ad agency comes up with just the most genius ad campaign for Money News Network Network of this podcast and releases that out into the world. They didn't even tell you about it. Just one day you wake up and you've got a ton of texts from people being like, that was awesome. And you're like, what are you even talking about? And then you found out. Do you have any obligation to this ad agency? I mean, maybe you'd want to hire them because they did such a good job. But like, does Nicole Lapin have. Have an obligation to this ad agency?

[B]

I don't, but they broke the Internet for me and they obviously put time and effort into doing it and then they did a good job at it. And so I'm benefiting from it. I feel like I need to do something for them.

[A]

Well, it sounds like what you have just broadcast is that if people make unauthorized work to your benefit, that you will pay them. So take note, everybody. Yeah, I love like is open.

[B]

If they're going to go that crazy above and beyond. Like setting up those big ass refrigerated boxes to reveal some message and then taping all this stuff and then paying for the shipment of these big ass boxes. I mean, I don't know. I feel like you should get compensated for that. I'm upset at you.

[A]

Although we don't actually know because the whole thing was staged. We don't know if they shipped anything. We don't even know if those boxes work. Like, it could have all just been painted in various phases. I have no idea about any of this.

[B]

Or it could just be Sora too. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah, this is pre that, but now it's true. Now nothing is. Nothing is believable. Well, okay, well, the thing that is believable is that Nicole will pay you for unsolicited work. So everybody take note.

[B]

But that's the point of doing like this grandiose pitch, right?

[A]

I've.

[B]

I've gotten very, very small samples of these types of things. Yeah, I think like the, the success rate when, when it's done well is always positive when somebody does like a little sample or goes above and beyond. Yeah, that's the point of this discussion.

[A]

But no, it's not. But, but I will. But one other thing. I will, I will say that I think that this ad agency benefited even though DHL didn't sign on as a client. Like, they actually probably got more clients.

[B]

Sure. They're going to have the Money News Network soon. Money News Network as the clients.

[A]

We're going to call them up right now. So, you know, it's like DHL didn't sign up, but instead they had A viral moment, and they showed what they can do, and I bet they got a bunch of work. I bet everybody is very happy, except for ups, which just seemed to be played the fool inside of this thing. I'm surprised UPS didn't have something to say about it. But anyway, okay, I say yes. It's totally fine. The only mistake with that this dispensary had is that they didn't actually train what are apparently very trainable pigeons. That was the mistake.

[B]

Yeah. Be like a pot carrier pigeon. Although, you know, what, if the pigeon got in the pot, would that be bad for the pigeon? We don't want to hurt pigeons.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Okay, I have another one for you guys. In this sort of marketing, best practices realm, LeBron James built up suspense by moving to a big decision. Did you guys see this?

[A]

Oh, I saw a headline that. A decision. Another decision is coming, but I actually don't have any idea what it is, so I'm glad you're going to tell me.

[C]

Yes. So you might have thought, as some people did, that he was going to announce a move to a different team.

[A]

Somewhere else.

[C]

Yep, exactly. The big decision was revealed, and the reveal is a campaign for Hennessy. No, the stunt got a lot of buzz, but also criticism for being misleading. So the question for this is kind of similar to the pigeon, where, you know, if you're lying about something, how does it affect credibility? But this is sort of like stretching audience expectations and maybe losing trust along the way. Like, when is mystery a good move in marketing versus just clickbait?

[B]

Well, this is like a bait and switch.

[C]

Click. Bait and switch.

[A]

Yeah, Right. I mean, the context for anyone who just moved to earth is that in what. I don't even know what it was, 2009 or something, LeBron left the Cavs that where he had been drafted, and it was a big thing. And, you know, where is he gonna go? What's gonna happen? And then he had this live ESPN special where he said he's taking his talents to south beach, which made me very happy because I'm Miami Heat fan, but made the entire rest of the world furious because it had been this big buildup just for him to say, like, screw you, Cleveland. I'm leaving my hometown. And. And then he won two championships with the Heat, so thank you very much. But anyway, so now here it is. He's. He's. He's channeling that same language. And towards the end of his career, in which things have not all worked out during his time in Los Angeles, and so where he's Playing on the Lakers now. And so. So it was actually pretty reasonable that maybe there was some other decision to be had. Although also foolish, because why would he repeat what was really a very bad PR decision at the time? And then it turns out it's just for Hennessy, which is stupid. Okay, that's stupid. So here's the framework that I propose for this. Are you adding or are you abusing? I think that in this case, you are abusing the trust and familiarity that people have of this thing. Like, if LeBron is going to say, I have a. There's a decision, then people all know what that is, and it is going to abuse the trust and interest that everybody has in that very specific formula LeBron plus decision for what is really a stupid, just regular old campaign. And like, LeBron endorses so many things, like, why would he spend this kind of capital on Hennessy, of all random things. Whereas the DHL thing is adding. Right. That is, it's creating a completely new moment. It is not hijacking any previously familiar thing. It is not trying to command any existing storyline. It is not trying to grab somebody's earned trust and attention. It is instead earning trust and attention. So are you adding or you're abusing? And I'd say Hennessy was abusing and LeBron was abusing. And I'm not going to buy Hennessy anymore. I never bought Hennessy, so it doesn't.

[B]

Really matter if you're new to Planet Help Wanted. Jason is a big Miami Heat fan and a big basketball fan. Yes, but not a big LeBron fan anymore.

[A]

That's more or less true. Although I appreciate what he did.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't know. Nicole, do you have anything else to add here on this?

[B]

I think that to zoom out, the world of influencer marketing is changing. Is. Is. You know, we can all agree on dying might be aggressive, but I think it's definitely going to change rapidly in the next few years with AI And I think that these big endorsements are not going to be as ubiquitous as they have been. And the agencies and the brands that tap influencers of all kinds are going to be way more demanding of the type of reach that the campaign gets. And they're going to try to create stunts in a way that they didn't have to before. So, like, five years ago, LeBron didn't have to do this whole rigmarole, fake announcement situation. He could put like a, you know, video of him drinking Hennessy with his pals and maybe it would move the needle. But now it's just become so saturated and the conversion is so much lower that brands and agencies need to step it up and step it up more like a tolerance.

[A]

Joy. Tolerance. Yeah, it's kind of like when somebody has a tolerance to drugs. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

So you have to just keep upping it. Right. So like, no longer is, you know, one pill going to do anything. It's going to be more. And so we've, we've gotten to this place, I think, in influencer marketing, where you constantly have to make it more and more outrageous. It happened with reality TV too, right? Like back in the day, it was road road rules in real world. And like, we were good. And then you put people in a cage and in a. On an island and like in a blind whatever, like dating crazy simulation pod. I don't know, like you had to do all these wild things because otherwise there was no stimulation because we were so overstimulated for so many years. So I think this same type of thing is happening in influence.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, that's an interesting. That's an interesting thought. It just two. Two, like maybe final things to add on top of that made me think. So number one is let's not forget that marketing has gone to extreme lengths forever. Kfc, for example, if you remember, created this giant mosaic in the Nevada desert of Colonel Sanders face which you could see from space. This is pretty ridiculous. But what I am most struck by is this consistent comment that I get on LinkedIn. So on LinkedIn, I'm regularly posting great advertisements and then breaking down why I think they work. And every time, now that I post an advertisement that is premised on some kind of spectacular stunt or visual. Like for example, a number of years ago, Sony to. To. To promote its new line of color TVs, did these two ads that just took over the world. One of them was that they got this apartment complex in Scotland that was abandoned and then they rigged it up with like, paint, like just paint cannons everywhere. Do you remember this? Like just, just insane amounts, tens of thousands of gallons of paint. And then they put together this, this, this, this music video of paint exploding in every possible way outside, inside. It is incredible. Like, go watch it. It's nuts. And then they did this other one in San Francisco where they released like, like tens of thousands of bouncy balls. And the bouncy balls are just like flooding down the streets of San Francisco. And those are real. Those are real stunts that they actually did. And every time I post them on LinkedIn, a whole bunch of people always say oh, but now you could just do that with AI, like, oh, they could have saved a lot of money and just done that with AI. But the thing is, it's not interesting if it was done with AI. Like, it's this. I actually, I think we misunderstand the distinction between a interesting visual and something that is satisfying because it actually happened. Those are not the same thing. And right now we seem to be equating them and it's like, oh, well, we could just make that with AI. But you know what? It's not. As soon as anybody can make anything with AI, then like, AI stuff is actually not interesting anymore. And instead what will be interesting will be anything that is definitively real. And so I think that marketers large and small need to be thinking a lot about how to create something that is distinctively real. Crazy visuals just for the sake of it that were made by a computer are just not compelling when everybody can do it. It was compelling when very few people could do it. Now anyone can do it. Not compelling. So you've got to be real and you still have to be doing real things, because we still live in the real world and we will always respond most to something that required somebody else's effort. And making something in AI just doesn't require anybody's effort. And so I think that for that reason, these things will become a bunch of mush and people will stop paying attention to them.

[B]

So the clickbait and switch.

[A]

Yeah, I don't think LeBron should have done that. I think that that was. I think that LeBron was abusing the trust and interest that he has with his fan base and with the culture at large because he, because he understood that everybody would pay attention to him saying that another decision is coming. And to then use that card for something as frivolous as just another campaign promotion, like, is so stupid. I. I actually think that it's really short sighted on him because he could have used that moment for something more significant in his life. Right. It's like, it's sort of like, you know, I like Nicole, I know that if I call you and ask for a favor, if I text you, and the words that I text you are, I really need a favor, you will stop whatever you're doing and you'll be like, what do you need? So I am not going to play that card for something really stupid because that, that abuses your time. And Similarly, I think LeBron has this thing in his back pocket which is to use the framing of a decision, and he should have used that for something more important for his career. Like whatever Hennessy paid him isn't possibly worth the money to him. Do we know Playing that card, it.

[B]

Could be like, he could be laughing to the bank and be like, I made a billion dollars.

[A]

Like, I can't imagine. Even if LeBron made a billion dollars, he's probably already got a billion dollars. Like, I just.

[B]

But who knows? Or he has, like, lifestyle creep, like, every rich person, and.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And he needed the money. And, like, I don't know. I don't know what happens behind the scenes.

[A]

I guess I don't, but I'm going to. I would put my own money on that. This was not a significant addition to LeBron's money. I'm sure that Hennessy paid very nicely, but if I were LeBron, I would have held onto that for when I was retiring or for something post retirement, but I wouldn't do it just for this stupid ad.

[B]

All right, but what if he got equity? I don't know. People are going to forget about it. This is a cycle. They're going to forget about it. He is check cleared. His wire cleared. Good on him.

[C]

As an interesting bookend to this story, he is being sued by one fan who bought one of the last tickets of the upcoming season and paid $865, which is the amount that he's suing LeBron for because he believed that that was going to be one of LeBron's last games.

[B]

Oh, my God. You know, remember when you said, like, we live in a real world? Do we have to? If this is real world, like, I'd like to opt out.

[A]

Yeah. I know somebody called Kala, which is the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, which is an actual organization. Like, that's stupid. Stick around. Help Wanted will be right back. Welcome back to Help Wanted. Let's get to it.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Moving on to a very different type of story. In France, a woman is bringing a lawsuit, another lawsuit against her company, claiming that over two decades, she was paid in full for her job, but essentially invisible, meaning she was given no tasks. So what? She was paid for doing nothing, and she's suing them because she says the arrangement was demeaning and unfair.

[A]

What? Yeah, I think everybody in the world would have traded her. Did they pay her well? Okay. Is there more? What on earth is happening in this situation?

[C]

No, that's the bizarreness of it.

[A]

That's it.

[C]

The question is, if you're an employee who feels like your job has become invisible, you don't get the same meaning that you were. You want to Take on more responsibility. How should you approach that conversation with your manager or your boss?

[B]

I mean, don't look to France. They're really like, I'm surprised that this happened in France because they're really about that laissez faire truly. And like a very strict, like it's five o'. Clock, like, I'm off.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. First of all, there is clearly more to this story and I would love.

[C]

To know it, but there really isn't.

[B]

Like what was the company, what was her title? Like? Was it.

[A]

Yeah. Did she, did she know that she was taking a job with no tasks? Like what is, what is happening and.

[B]

Why didn't she just leave if she was not about it? I think it's also really hard specifically in France to let anybody go. You have to appeal it and like get it approved or some, something, something.

[A]

The lawsuit alleges that they were trying to coerce her into quitting her job, that maybe is that anchor here, that they didn't want to employ her and so they were giving her no work to try to get her to quit there. I mean, there are these funny quotes from her that I feel like just kind of read wrong where she says being paid at home, not working is not a privilege. It's very hard to bear. Which is funny because it's sort of like the dream for many people. It's just like important to understand the, the like the basics of what on earth we're talking about. But like leaving that aside, what I would say is everybody who has a job has to understand that you are involved in a transaction and you need to make sure that that transaction is good for you. Not just now, but later too. Like I, I think one of the most short sighted things I think people can do is just take money to have a job that does not move them forward. Because at the end of that you won't have anything but the money that you previously earned that you probably don't have anymore and you'll have nothing else. And that doesn't help you get another job. It doesn't help you advance. You have to be constantly mindful of what the transaction is and to be thinking of it like a transaction every day. I am going to put my time into this and I have to decide what my time is worth. And part of that is money, right? Part of that is what is my time worth on a hourly or an annual basis. But it should be something else too. It can't just be money or I would advise that it shouldn't just be money. It has to be growth. It has to be positioning. It has to be the ability to get the kind of skills and connections and knowledge and whatever that you need to be able to go take care of yourself after you work at this company. Because again, this is a transaction, and that transaction can end at any time. So the mistake I think a lot of people make is that they park themselves somewhere and then they get upset when the transaction is over. People are laid off. They're like, well, now what am I supposed to do? I don't know. You should, you should have been working on that. I think that's not to. That's not to be like, coarse or crass to people who lose their jobs. That really, really sucks. I have lost my job before, but I also have spent my entire career thinking every single day, what can I do today to. To. To position me for success if this ends tomorrow? And I think that is, that is the only way to go into employment. I think is. Is to. Is to be thinking about. You have to be positioning yourself for tomorrow, not just taking the transaction today. Nicole, what do you think?

[B]

Yes, and not everybody really visualizes a career from their work life. And maybe it shouldn't all be about money, but I think a majority of it should be about money because there is no shame in feeding yourself and taking care of yourself and your family. And that's what you should optimize for. And I've said this on the show before, and I will say it again. And I think that, you know, you can find passions, you can find joys in other places. You can't really find money in other places unless you're doing weird stuff and people do weird stuff for money. Like, this lady didn't have to send feet photos.

[A]

Like, no, that's true. You know, have to send any photos. She wasn't required to send anything. Yeah, no, that's. That's totally true. And to be clear, my advice is not only aimed at people who make work a central part of their lives, like the three of us, because I like. Okay, I, I have a. I have a friend from college who I think listens to this show. I don't know. Hello. Who. Who.

[B]

Hi. I hope you have more than one friend from college.

[A]

No, I do. I, I do have more than one friend from college, but I. This one in particular, she got a job working at Starbucks, and she continually refused promotion opportunities because she just didn't want to make Starbucks her career. But she also wasn't really that career motivated and didn't want to do Anything else for a long time. And so she just worked at Starbucks. She was just a barista. And, and like, that's totally fine. That is, that's great. She, she work is low priority for her in her life and she didn't want to add to it. And I, I respect that. I think that's great. The, the one thing that I would say though is that that leaves you extremely vulnerable to if that current job ends. Right? Like, you don't have to make work a central part of your life to be thinking about protecting yourself against the inevitability of your work at one company ending. Because if Starbucks decided to fire her or close her store or whatever, and she hadn't done anything to better position herself in the marketplace, then she would be kind of stuck. And I, I don't like that for people. I want people to be positioning themselves to, for, for some level of self sufficiency, even if that self sufficiency just means I can do a better job for myself of finding other employment opportunities. So I don't think that you need to like be a work obsessed person to be thinking about that.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

And. All right, maybe your friend didn't, maybe your friend just needed this job for that time period. And the next thing she goes, after it goes off her resume and it's not even included or she starts, you know, Jason, there's this thing called entrepreneurship. I don't know if you've heard of it. It's easier now than ever before to start your own company, to start a.

[A]

Magazine where I can read about that.

[B]

To work for yourself, you know, and so if really she needed to take care of her family or somebody was not well, or she just needed to be a barista and like she didn't want to think about it and she didn't want to have managerial responsibilities and she needed the job and that was it. Like, not every job has to be a career moving step. And so maybe after that she decided to be an entrepreneur and like she was her own boss and she didn't want to look at her own resume or didn't care like what her last thing was. And that's okay.

[A]

No, that's true. And you know what? Actually, funny enough, that is more or less what happened, which is that she was really passionate about photography. And so on the side of Starbucks, she was, she was taking photos. And the last time I talked to her, which is maybe about a year ago, she was in the process of trying to build out like a photography business, which is great. So in that case I would say that she indeed was actually developing self sufficiency because she was leaning into a skill that she eventually could make money off of in a way that was much more ownable than the money at Starbucks. So I agree.

[B]

Basically, I'm just saying, like, you just.

[A]

Want to disagree with me.

[B]

Well, yes, it's my favorite sport. The only cardio I get by arguing with you, running my mouth. But, yeah, like, take it from us. Don't be us.

[A]

That is true. That's a good. We should sell that as a T shirt.

[B]

As someone who's only thought about this.

[A]

Yeah. You know, right. There are other ways.

[C]

Are you ready for the grand finale?

[A]

I am always ready for a grandfather. If something is teed up as a grand finale, then I'm. Yes.

[B]

The French.

[C]

A YouTuber impersonated in and out staff staging pranks. Like, fake.

[A]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. What? A YouTuber. A YouTuber. Say it again.

[C]

A YouTuber impersonated in N Out staff. So pretending to be an employee at in and out the fastest, the staff.

[A]

Of an in and out burger. Okay.

[B]

Yes, got it.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

While in that costume, they staged pranks, like, created fake menus with weird things on it and claims about bugs in the food and condoms in the food.

[A]

No.

[C]

And they posted it online. The chain is now suing for defamation.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

Interesting that you guys both said that, because the question is, should. How should brands engage with things like this? Should they engage aggressively with something like suing for defamation? Should they ignore it or should they turn it into something playful?

[B]

Oh, it's great question. It totally depends on what the prank is. Yeah, like the DHL thing.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Chef's kiss. Like, engage. Play with it. Just be playful, whatever. With condoms and bugs in your food.

[A]

Yeah. Yes. Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

I mean, it's like a sanitary. I don't know, like, yes, you can have humor, and it can be kind of raunchy or naughty or something, but, like, once you're dealing with, like, grossness in your food, I think.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Cross the line.

[A]

Yeah, I. I totally, totally agree. You know, the. So in intellectual property law, everything comes down to the question of consumer confusion. Like, does. Does this create confusion for the consumer about, like, which brand is which or who said what? And if you can prove that people are confused, then you have a stronger case in court. And I think that that is a pretty good metric for lots of other things too. So in this case, it's not exactly an IP question, although sort of is, because that guy was utilizing In N Out's IP and posing with the uniform and stuff. But really the thing that In N Out is concerned about here is consumer confusion. That this stunt, even if the people who are watching this youtuber's videos understand it to be a stunt, it will leak out into culture as there are bugs in the food. And that is not something that any restaurant wants people to be thinking about. In fact, I am sure that there are a lot of very well paid people at In N Out HQ whose jobs are just to make sure that there are no bugs in the food. Right? So that, that creates confusion and that's stupid. Whereas the DHL thing, again, Chef's Kiss, it creates, it created confusion in a way. The confusion was like, who made this? But like, it doesn't confuse your understanding of DHL or frankly any other of its competitors. So there's, there's no harm in confusion and there's also no reputational damage. I think that if you're a company and reputational damage is. Is, is is on the line, then you need to act really aggressively because you're not playing along with bugs in the food. Like, if you're playing along with bugs in the food, you're encouraging the next person to make another bugs in the food thing. And then suddenly everyone's like, it's so fun. In and out loves jug joke. In N Out loves joking about bugs in the food. Unless now you're down a really bad route. Right, so it's all out. No in on this.

[B]

I see what you said there.

[A]

Thank you. It wasn't that good, but I appreciate it. Help Wanted is a production of Money News Network. Help Wanted is hosted by me, Jason.

[B]

Pfeiffer and me, Nicole Lapin. Our executive producer is Morgan Lavoy. Do you want some help? Email our [e-mail] for the chance to have some of your questions answered on the show. And follow us on Instagram @MoneyNews and TikTok. MoneyNewsNetwork for exclusive content and to see our beautiful face. Maybe a little dance.

[A]

Oh, I didn't sign up for that.

[B]

All right, well, talk to you soon.