← Help Wanted
Help Wanted
Funny Business: Lessons From (Another!) HBO Max Rebrand, Anti-Seduction Training and the McDonald’s Hack
00:41:35
Loading summary
Transcript123 lines
- [00:00]
Nicole Lapin
You know what I'm really over?
- [00:02]
Jason Pfeiffer
Fees.
- [00:03]
Nicole Lapin
Concert ticket fees, cleaning fees on weekend rentals, a processing fee for existing. It is endless. And the worst part, these fees hit hardest when you're already trying to get ahead. Fees are everywhere and they hurt you most when you're down. That's why Chime offers fee free banking, which means no monthly fees, no overdraft fees, and no minimum balance fees. I once got hit with a $15 maintenance fee just because my account dipped below the minimum bal for a single day. I wasn't overspending. I was just timing my rent payments around payday. That fee felt like a big penalty just for budgeting. But with Chime, I wouldn't have gotten charged for not being rich yet. No minimum balances, no hidden fees, just breathing room when I actually would have needed it. It is so simple. Banking should not cost you money. And with Chime, it doesn't open your account in two minutes. @chime.com help wanted. Chime feels like progress.
- [01:01]
Chime Representative
Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services and debit card provided by the Bancorp 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 US News and World Report, 2023 chime checking account required.
- [01:20]
Jason Pfeiffer
This is Help Wanted, the show that makes your work work for you. I'm Jason Pfeiffer, editor in chief of.
- [01:26]
Entrepreneur magazine and I'm money expert Nicole Lapin.
- [01:29]
Nicole Lapin
On Tuesdays, Jason and I answer the.
- [01:31]
Jason Pfeiffer
Helpline and solve their work problems.
- [01:34]
And on Thursdays, I give you one way to improve your work and build a career or company you love.
- [01:39]
And it starts now.
- [01:42]
Morgan Lavoy
Nicole, Jason, hello. It's Morgan me, your executive producer.
- [01:46]
Jason Pfeiffer
Hello Morgan, you our executive producer.
- [01:49]
Morgan Lavoy
Well, I am here today to do a recurring segment that we've been doing on Help Wanted, which is Funny Business. And the premise is I give you guys some bizarre wacky headlines that are in business news and I ask you both to extract some some gems of real advice and insight from these unreal sounding stories.
- [02:11]
Jason Pfeiffer
Right. It's almost the reverse of comedy podcasts where they just introduce regular things and then try to make them funny. You are going to introduce ridiculous things from the world and then we're going to try to make them actually useful.
- [02:22]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah, exactly. Okay, so I'm going to start with the first one. So as of yesterday, it is official. HBO streaming app Max has officially been Rebranded back to its old name, HBO Max.
- [02:37]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yes.
- [02:37]
Morgan Lavoy
The app has been called HBO Go hbo, now HBO Max Max, and now HBO Max. Again.
- [02:45]
Jason Pfeiffer
That is funny. Hearing the long thread of it is ridiculous.
- [02:48]
Morgan Lavoy
It is pretty ridiculous. And unlike the last transition from HBO Max to Max where you had to download a new app and you had to change your account and you won't be required to do this, they're just taking the Max app, calling it HBO Max, rebranding it on the existing app. But the brands are having trouble getting X to change their names back, which is funny. But do you guys think it was a smart move to rebrand back to the old name?
- [03:17]
Jason Pfeiffer
I still don't understand why any of this happened. This seems it. See, I mean, why would you take a high quality brand and then like treat it like a beach ball at a concert where everyone's just like popping it around and it's just, it doesn't, I just don't understand why they did this now. It's just completely confusing of what this thing actually is. Should they have done it? I don't know. I don't know why they did it originally. Oh, well, actually, wait a second, that's not true. I, I kind of do because I had a friend who was at HBO Max or whatever the hell at some point in one of these transitions. And so I can tell you what he told me from the inside, which made some kind of sense. Actually not enough sense to go through all this rigmarole, but some sense which was that they, and I don't know the entertainment industry well enough to exactly define who they is, but they were trying to figure out how to merge premium high end content with more mass market low end content. So you've got the legacy of HBO and then you've got like all this discovery stuff which is part of the same company. And so now it's like a bunch of reality shows and you know, random kind of lowbrow content. And, and they were, they wanted to put it together in one service because of course we're now in this moment in which the entertainment industry, which had completely unbundled itself, is now trying to figure out like what is the proper rebundling of its content because everyone is maxed out on subscriptions. And so. Thank you, I appreciate it. That didn't really deserve any kind of reaction for me playing off of Max, but you gave me one anyway. So they had this challenge which was you take HBO's high quality stuff and you take discoveries, like low browse stuff. You don't want to take the lowbrow stuff and put it underneath the HBO brand because that devalues the HBO brand. But you don't want to take the HBO stuff and put it into discovery because now it just seems complete. Completely. It's just now you've given up the HBO brand and you've kind of lost the value of this premium stuff. So what do you do? So you have to create some umbrella new name that is still HBO ish, but also indicates that it's not just hbo. And that I think was the thing that they were solving for and that's how they got into this whole big crazy mess. And I don't have a great answer, but also I think that if I had a great answer by playing a pundit on a podcast, then then that would be a miracle because they have very smart people over there and they couldn't come up with a good answer too.
- [05:56]
And I think it's been this hot potato. I just pulled up like all the acquisitions of HBO. So HBO was initially launched in 1972, fun fact by Time. And then it became part of Time Warner through the acquisition, which was later acquired by AT&T in 2018 and then in 2022 spun off from AT&T to form WarnerMedia, including HBO, which was then smushed official business terminology with Discovery to form Warner Brothers Discovery. So it seems like at all these different inflection points, the executives needed to do something or put their mark on it. I just imagine like a comedy skit of all these high paid executives sitting around being like, we gotta do something now. Yeah, let's just change the name. And yeah, again, our keep around here.
- [06:48]
But I'll tell you, I actually do have a lesson to extract from this. It is, it is not anything in what you just said because that's a whole bunch of corporate nonsense. But instead it is this. Did you guys see what HBO's socials were doing when they announced the new rebrand or the new, old, old new rebrand?
- [07:10]
Morgan Lavoy
Yes.
- [07:10]
Jason Pfeiffer
Nope. No.
- [07:11]
What did they do, Morgan?
- [07:12]
Morgan Lavoy
Well, they were making fun of themselves.
- [07:15]
Jason Pfeiffer
That's right.
- [07:15]
Morgan Lavoy
In shows.
- [07:16]
Jason Pfeiffer
I like that.
- [07:17]
Morgan Lavoy
So, so like there's this iconic line from White Lotus, Jennifer Coolidge season two where like a bunch of people are trying to murder her and she's like, the gays are trying to kill me. And so they made their bio on Instagram. These rebrands are trying to kill me. And they, they made some videos. They did like a whole campaign around sort of like being like, oh, what an eye roll. We're Going back to this is ridiculous. It was funny.
- [07:42]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah, it was funny. Actually, you're right. I have a couple of them pulled up. Let's share. We can all look together. Okay, so this one is a screenshot from the title card of an episode of Curb youb Enthusiasm. And the episode was called no Lessons Learned. And they just circled it and posted it, which I thought was great. Here's another one, which is the classic images of the spider. The three spider mans all pointing at each other. This is a version of that, but it's all Superman's. And then it's labeled. One is labeled HBO Max, the other is Max. The other is HBO now. And. And the caption that they put on it was V2 approved by legal is also good. This one, which is a picture of some divers in a cage because they're going to go down clearly and see, like a bunch of great white sharks that are going to attack them. And. And it says going into the comment section after rebranding again. And I like this. I think this is really good because the company understands that this is ridiculous and you have to engage with humans like humans. If HBO did not mock itself, then everybody would think human, that they thought that this was a perfectly normal and good business decision, and everyone would have thought it was ridiculous. And so I really like that HBO or Max or whoever the hell we say is in charge over there, that they understood what the reaction to this would be, that they understood that this is ridiculous and that they gave their team permission to engage with it like normal humans. And I think think that that helped HBO be part of the conversation instead of keeping it out of the conversation. And that, actually, I think, is a great lesson for us all that. That when you. You need to understand how people perceive you and then roll with that instead of ignoring it or fighting against it.
- [09:50]
I like that. My first reaction was, is this a PR marketing stunt? Almost.
- [09:56]
Mm. I mean, you know what they should have done? They should have announced this on April 1, because everyone would have thought it was just one of those dumb corporate April Fool's jokes. But then on April 2, they insisted that actually this is real. And then it would have been presented in this really unique way and it would have totally owned a media cycle. But they didn't do that.
- [10:20]
I think, like, the idea of rebranding to something totally different because you think your original brand, like, can handle more brands is sometimes premature. Like, I think stepping away from a brand that you've built as your sort of hero brand, a lot of entrepreneurs want to create a lot of products before they've solidified the first thing and then rebrand more things and think that it's strong enough. So I think, like, coming back to the original brand to say, hey, we're not cooler than hbo. HBO is our main, you know, brand. And losing that loses more than we anticipated. Clearly is an important lesson to always go back to, like, your hero, what is your hero? And be really strong about that.
- [11:13]
Yeah, actually, that. That's a good point and worth unpacking a little further on branding. This question of what is the hero and what do you build as the name of the brand reminds me of a problem that I see recur all the time in the consumer packaged goods space. So consumer packaged goods, drinks, food, any kind of easily disposable, consumable thing. What I see a lot of founders do is take something to market with a name that is oriented around what they think differentiates the product, but they haven't actually validated whether it is the thing that actually matters to other people, which sounds abstract. So I'll give you a specific example, which is my friend Dave. So Dave founded a, like, a fitness recovery drink. Like, you know, like sort of Gatorade. Ish. Right? Like you, You. You go hard at the gym and then you drink this to have your body recover. And he called it O2. And the O2 is a reference to the oxygenated liquid. So the idea is that this. This liquid has, like, oxygen infused in it and that helps your body something. Something. I don't know the science of it, but. But they took it to market and then after a few years were really struggling to grow in retail and discovered after doing some consumer research that first of all, their target demo was totally off. They thought that this was going to be a product for young men. And it was actually a product. Like, it was actually embraced by women, which was interesting, and, like, a little bit older than the young men they were targeting, and that the women were really interested in it because of the clean ingredients and they. And the flavors. And they thought of it as just a regular hydration beverage, not like a thing that they. They drink after working out. And the oxygenated thing didn't make any sense to them. Like, it just was not at all. Or. Or me. Right. It was just not relevant and it wasn't that interesting. And so O2 has now pivoted and made themselves far more flavor forward and like, completely redesigned. The. The package should be more gender neutral. But they're stuck with the name O2 because they had this idea that the oxygenated beverage was the thing that made them stand out in a marketplace. And now they're stuck with this, this name that references a thing that actually isn't the primary cell. And I see versions of this all the time. I recently heard about a, a company called, that uses ghee, you know, like G H E E. That's like butter type thing as, as a ingredient. And they have ghee in the name. And I told them, like, look, I think that that's really a mistake because not enough people know what ghee is. People are not going to buy you because you have ghee. They're going to buy you because you're, because you're like, delicious or, you know, like you're solving some other problem, but it's not gonna be ghee. And, and so really just saying it makes you laugh, which means, like, this is not good. But because they think that the ghee is what makes them stand out, they've put ghee in the name and that is a big mistake. So like, like, you don't want. The point of this is you don't want to limit your opportunity to reach people based on the name that you choose, because that's what you think makes you special. This is not exactly the same problem that HBO was running into, but it actually sort of was because HBO had defined itself in this very particular way and then entered a entertainment moment in time in which it needed to define itself in a different way. And, like, didn't know what to do and clearly still doesn't know what to do. But if you're starting out, basically know that the thing that you think makes you special may not. And don't call your name ghee.
- [14:44]
Morgan Lavoy
Next one. A former executive at Moet Hennessy claims a male boss told her she needed to undergo anti seduction training and then denied her a promotion. This is one of numerous complaints of bullying and sexual harassment at the French wine and spirits giant, according to a report. Now that sounds so ridiculous. It sounds like there's a lot of corroborated stories by other co workers about the culture at moa. Putting that aside, if you did have a employee who was flirty with clients, what would be the right way to have a conversation with them? Because it's probably not recommending anti seduction training. Unless it is.
- [15:27]
Jason Pfeiffer
No, although I googled it.
- [15:29]
Training even is that.
- [15:30]
Well, I googled it when you said it to see if anti seduction training was something that some psychopath is offering. There are some YouTube videos, which doesn't surprise me, but I'M not sure it goes much further than that.
- [15:42]
So basically this woman was too flirty. Somebody said, knock it off, go to this training. Because maybe HR said that that was the right way to tell you to do this. And.
- [15:57]
But wait, have we stopped being flirty? Hey, have we confirmed that she actually was flirty? Like, is this the issue?
- [16:03]
Morgan Lavoy
Let's put that story aside because first of all, we, we weren't in the room, so it's hard to say. Like, this is kind of an ongoing lawsuit that hasn't been decided. So all of these are just allegations. The female employee alleges that this is what her boss has told her and that it was completely inappropriate and untrue. The male bosses say that they got feedback from clients that were saying that she was coming on to them. We don't know who's telling the truth here, but this isn't the only example of female employees speaking out against the brand and the kind of culture of sexual harassment there. But I'm using that more as a jumping off point to say, like, if, you know Nicole, you're my boss, if you had one of our clients come to you and it was like, oh my God, Morgan's making me uncomfortable.
- [16:52]
Jason Pfeiffer
She's flirting.
- [16:53]
Morgan Lavoy
She's flirting with me too much. How would you handle it?
- [16:57]
Jason Pfeiffer
I mean, it's so funny because Jason put it into Google, I put it into ChatGPT and it immediately said this sounds like stealth seduction rehab. And so maybe my, this is because it's my chatgpt and it knows me. Yeah, like sending somebody to seduction rehab seems so odd. I would not send you to just seduction.
- [17:24]
Yeah, Morgan, I appreciate your effort to try to drive this to some actual valuable place, but instead I'm going to tell you that I now just put into ChatGPT. If you had to create a three point training to make people less seductive, what would you teach? And it, it, it produced a program called how to Repel without really Trying, which. That's good. That sounds good. And the three modules are flatten emotional expression, undermine mystery and vulnerability, and disrupt presence and attunement. And, and then there are details on how to, how to do it, for example, flatten emotional expression. The goal is to reduce charisma and emotional resonance. Here's how to train it. Practice maintaining a neutral tone in conversation, avoiding enthusiasm, curiosity, or warmth, which is actually something that I do from time to time if I want to get out of a conversation. Use vague or generic responses like that's fine or cool, no matter the context. And avoid mirroring body language or expressions. Stay stiff and still.
- [18:23]
Oh, my God.
- [18:24]
Morgan Lavoy
Wow. What a good way to win business.
- [18:28]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah, I got a similar curriculum. So just to compare, mine started with five days. It's a five day program. Day one is the art of oversharing. Say everything you're thinking. Bonus points if it's about your ex. So I think it's like, how to rip help people. Day two is how to ruin a compliment. Day three is monologue mastery. Talk at people, not with them.
- [18:52]
Oh, that's great.
- [18:53]
Phrases like, anyway, enough about you. Perfect.
- [18:57]
Morgan Lavoy
Like how to lose a job in 10 days. It's crazy.
- [19:00]
Jason Pfeiffer
Exactly.
- [19:02]
Is that a thing? Did you just make that up? I know there's how to lose a guy in 10 days. It does how to lose a job in 10 days exist?
- [19:08]
Morgan Lavoy
I did just make that up. And I'm not even on ChatGPT, guys. That came from my noggin.
- [19:12]
Jason Pfeiffer
That's great. That was the most clever thing and it came from a human, which I appreciate. How to lose a job in 10 days is a thing that somebody should make. That is a. That is a compelling setup for something.
- [19:22]
Sounds like Moe is making it.
- [19:24]
Yeah. Let's now move it to Morgan's actual circumstance here, which is like, let's. Let's just say just for the sheer thought experiment of it, that you're running a company and a client comes to you and says, hey, your employee was pretty flirty in that meeting. What do you do about that?
- [19:44]
Nicole Lapin
Well, so I was going to tell.
- [19:46]
Jason Pfeiffer
The story actually of when this happened to me.
- [19:53]
Stick around. Help Wanted will be right back. Welcome back to Help Wanted. Let's get to it.
- [20:04]
Well, so I was going to tell the story actually of when this happened to me. I consider myself, like, asexual in work things. I really, you know, this is a whole other episode. But, like, truly do not put a seductive foot forward. Like, it's not a thing that I. I try to do in a workplace. And I know that's not the case for everybody. Like, you know, we live in. In the real world, there are people that love a seduction policy. I am really, truly not one of them. And at this point, if I were, I would talk about it. But. But I really, like, really hold, hold a boundary and align there. And I was really surprised when I worked at Bloomberg with an executive producer there who I had also worked with at CNN when I lived in Atlanta for cnn, I, through Osmosis of the south, started using, like, honey and sweetie more as like pet name, kind of like conversational.
- [21:10]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. You know, whatever, right? No, it's a thing. I've. The thing people do. I got Maurizio, my next door neighbor, calls me baby. Actually kind of love it. What's up, baby? I think it's great, but. Yeah, anyway. But I. I get yourself perfect.
- [21:24]
So in the south, the equivalent would be like, honey, sweetie to everybody, not your significant other. Like, it was very much in a workplace scenario. I don't know. So I, And I say y', all, and I'm from la, and I stopped doing that intentionally for the most part. But, you know, I lived there a long time and brought that with me to New York. And so I said something in passing like, oh, oh, yeah, honey, or something like that. And I. And I cannot remember if it was to a woman or a man or if that matters, you tell me. But the executive producer was like, don't say honey or sweetie to people at work. And it didn't occur to me that that would come across as seductive. But he just, like, flat out said that to me and I was like, cool. Thank you. Noted. Didn't mean it that way, but I guess, like, if we're really holding this anti seduction boundary, like, it's gone. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna honey you anymore. Sir. Sir.
- [22:33]
But. But he said it to you in a pretty direct way. Like you were. Did you feel, you didn't feel. Do you. Did you feel personally judged or did you just feel like he was, he was making clear a professional boundary that you were missing?
- [22:45]
Yeah, I. It was a blind spot. I didn't mean it in any sort of way that he could have been insinuating, but I didn't, I didn't do it again.
- [22:55]
Morgan Lavoy
I think I would be mortified if somebody was that direct. Oh, really? Yeah, totally. I think.
- [23:01]
Jason Pfeiffer
What would you.
- [23:02]
What would you want to happen?
- [23:04]
Morgan Lavoy
I. I don't know, because I. I would definitely want to correct the behavior, but I think I would just be so embarrassed if somebody was like, you need anti seduction training.
- [23:17]
Jason Pfeiffer
Oh, well, I mean, that's a whole other thing.
- [23:20]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah, or. Or just. Just that, like, I'm such a rule follower that if you've crossed a boundary with something that you just said, I would be so mortified. I. I think, like, I don't know. I. I was thinking about this too, and thinking about, you know, what I would say, or I guess the other way to think about it is what I would want someone to tell me. And I don't know, you guys let me know if you think that this is too veiled or too indirect in a way that wouldn't serve the person particularly well. But I would maybe want to say something like, hey, you know, I really appreciate all the work and time that you've spent getting to know the clients. I'm really excited about this business and working on this partnership together. I think that generally our clients appreciate and value us more the more professional we are. And so even though it's tempting sometimes to be really friendly with people, to want to foster some sort of feelings of collaboration and you're on the same team, I actually think keeping a really professional line is going to be the best way to move forward with this client and all others. Do you think that that's too vague?
- [24:37]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah, I do. Very bluntly.
- [24:41]
Morgan Lavoy
No, that's totally fine.
- [24:42]
Jason Pfeiffer
I think because there is a really fine line between being charming and personable and creating good relationships and having people like you and root for you and the rest of it, which does garner business. And, you know, being, you know, sexual in some sort of way, which is not that, but you wouldn't want to be, you know, over. You wouldn't want to overcompensate the other way and be so scared of saying anything that you're not creating good relationships.
- [25:18]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah, that's only relationships.
- [25:21]
Jason Pfeiffer
I mean, my instinct in tricky situations is to zoom out, give context, and then play the role of guy. Just trying to figure it out with you. That's how I usually like to roll. So, like, in this. In this particular scenario, if I got a call from a client who was. Who was like, your employee. Morgan is way too flirty, you know? Well, first I would try to be like, oh, can you give me, like, an example? It's just like, what are you talking about? And then. Well, actually, before I tell you what I. What I would do next, do you think two women who I am talking to, do you think that I man, should go talk to the woman or should I, like, find a woman to do it? Like, is that. Like, is that. Is it too weird for me to march in and have this conversation?
- [26:16]
Well, probably that was what happened at Moet, where they were like, oh, a guy has to have this conversation. How do we do this? Let's super corporate ify it and Right. Send her to some ridiculous training.
- [26:29]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, my. If I had to do it, my instinct would be to then go to Morgan and basically say, like, hey, okay, so got a. Got a weird call from a client. I don't really know what's going on. I don't Know, if they're overly touchy, I don't know what they're perceiving, but, you know, like, that doesn't really matter, though. What really just matters is, like, understanding the client. So let's just. Let me just tell you what they said, and. And you tell me what you think happened there. And I'm not judging anything here. I just want to make sure that we just don't get ourselves into any trouble with the client. So here's what they said. Now, Morgan, what do you think happened here? And. Okay, well, you know that what you're describing to me sounds. You know, look, I don't know. I wasn't there. But what we need to know is that they're really touching about this. And, you know, hey, maybe they're right. And, like, let's just be mindful that they operate like that, and then we can move forward knowing that. And. Sorry, this is kind of uncomfortable to discuss, but I have to navigate this, and that means we have to navigate this. That. That's. That's. You, like, it's like that tone that I usually take on these things. We're like, look, I'm a partner with you on this. We're navigating this thing. I got to tell you about this. Here's what happened. We're just. All that matters to me is just that we, like, figure it out, and then we can keep going. How do you think that would be received?
- [27:58]
Morgan Lavoy
I like that. What do you think, Nicole?
- [28:01]
Jason Pfeiffer
But what if it was a chronic. What if Morgan was a chronic seduction offender? What if you got this feedback from so many men, women, AI bots.
- [28:16]
I don't know. Everybody is getting serious by Morgan.
- [28:20]
Morgan Lavoy
Jason's like, well, Morgan, it happened again.
- [28:22]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah, but also French. Right? The French. If the French are thinking it's too seductive, it might be too seductive.
- [28:31]
I mean, well, maybe. But also, we've gone down this road where it's also possible that this is just, like, an asshole boss who's trying to. Trying to. Like, trying to do some weird shit with his female employees, which is all, you know. So we've. We've, like, taken seriously an accusation that may not even actually have merit. But if we're just trying to think through the issue, I would say, Nicole, that the. The scenario that you just laid out would be the result of really bad management from me. Because if. If Morgan is a serial over seducer, then. And I'm hearing about it from tons of clients, that means that I didn't take action the first time that I heard about It. Right. I mean, unless. Unless Morgan, on day one, meets with a hundred clients and tries to seduce them all. Then like, and they're all calling me at the same time. Otherwise this would have happened in some kind of stages. And so I think that you just, you know, you need to like jump on it the first time that you hear about it. And it doesn't have to be crazy. That's why I like my strategy, Jason. That's true. Well, yeah, we didn't have to jump on it. We had to address it very professionally in an anti seduction kind of way. And I like, I just really like zooming out. Like, the problem that I had, Morgan, with your scenario was that the person who's receiving that information doesn't have all the information. They don't know like what happened that prompted this. Something happened. Like you're saying this for some reason, but like, what is it? What are you actually trying to tell me? I don't like that. But if I just come in and like, look, I got a call and here's what they said and now you tell me, and now we've got as much information as we're going to have together on the table here and let's just figure it out. That. I just. I just feel like everyone operates better when everyone feels like they all know what's going on.
- [30:14]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah, no, that makes sense. I like that. Okay, last story. McDonald's is having some problems.
- [30:21]
Jason Pfeiffer
Oh.
- [30:21]
Morgan Lavoy
Wired reports that McDonald's company's hiring site mchire.com, built by AI software firm Paradox AI had security flaws that expose the personal data of tens of millions of McDonald's job seekers. The records of Olivia, the chatbot that applicants interacted with, were easy for hackers to access because hackers could guess the username and the password for the administrator login was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
- [30:50]
Jason Pfeiffer
Oh, come on.
- [30:51]
That's. Come on, your fault.
- [30:53]
Morgan Lavoy
As many as 64 million records were left vulnerable containing applicants names, email addresses and phone numbers. I'd like you to rate McDonald's public statement. They said, quote, we're disappointed by this unacceptable vulnerability from a third party provider, Paradox AI. As soon as we learned of the issue, we mandated Paradox AI to remediate the issue immediately and it was resolved on the same day it was reported to us. We take our commitment to cybersecurity seriously and will continue to hold our third party providers accountable to meeting our standards of data protection.
- [31:30]
Jason Pfeiffer
Three thumbs down.
- [31:31]
Yeah.
- [31:33]
Awful.
- [31:34]
Morgan Lavoy
Tell me why.
- [31:35]
Jason Pfeiffer
That is a. That is a. Oh my God. That is a big Mac of a mistake. Terrible, terrible. Okay, why? Here's why. Let me in contrast, by contrast, tell you this quick story and I'm going to read you the statement and then we're going to compare and contrast. A number of years ago KFC switched like it's logistics supplier or something. I don't remember the exact details, but they switched their logistics supplier and there was a screw up with the transition and the new supplier like messed something up. And as a result KFC ran out of chicken across the uk. And so this was, people were very upset. You know, you get in the car, you drive, you know you want to pick up dinner and there's no chicken at the chicken place. So what does KFC do? Well, first they have to shut everything down while they fix the issue. And then they ran this ad, full page ad in a bunch of news, national newspapers in the uk. It has a red background, it's all kind of scuffed. There is a bucket that looks like it's been tipped over and it's empty, but there's like some crumbs falling out of it. And then instead of, you know, you got Colonel Sanders on the bucket. And then instead of kfc, it says fck, which I think is pretty good. Then here is what it says underneath. I shall read it in full. We're sorry. That is big and bold underneath a chicken restaurant without any chicken. It's not ideal. Huge apologies to our customers, especially those who traveled out of their way to find we were closed. And endless thanks to our KFC team members and our franchise partners for working tirelessly to improve the situation. It's been a hell of a week, but we're making progress. And every day more and more fresh chicken is being delivered to our restaurants. Thank you for bearing with us. Visit and then a website for details about your local restaurant. Okay, here rather okay, what is the main difference in your eyes and ears, Morgan and Nicole, between the McDonald's statement and the KFC one?
- [33:48]
They're inclusive. Like we're sorry. Like it could have been an agency or a fulfillment company or whatever. And McDonald's was like this agency, company. AI person sucks and we're gonna slap you on the wrist.
- [34:03]
Exactly. The KFC apology never even mentions the third party. It was the third party screw up, not KFC screw up. KFC owned it 100%. They never pass the buck. And that to me matters so much. That builds trust. McDonald's, they just threw somebody under the bus. And you know what? Maybe it was their fault. Maybe it was the third party's fault. But like, also McDonald's, it's your fault for maybe choosing the wrong third party, for not working with them closely enough or whatever the hell it is. Like, your face is on this and you need to own it. And I'm very, very, very proud of poor showing that they didn't agreed.
- [34:44]
Yeah.
- [34:44]
Morgan Lavoy
Great.
- [34:44]
Jason Pfeiffer
I feel like they could have done some ad with like, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or something.
- [34:51]
Yeah.
- [34:51]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah.
- [34:52]
Nicole Lapin
I don't know.
- [34:53]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah. Why was 6 afraid of 7, 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? I think the difference is it's like placing blame versus taking responsibility. And I feel like if I. If I was one of the people who went to KFC looking for chicken and saw this ad, I would be like, that's funny. Like, I'll try them again. But seeing as if I was a McDonald's customer and I saw this, I wouldn't be like, having that same warm feeling of, oh, like, better luck next time, McDonald's.
- [35:25]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah.
- [35:27]
Morgan Lavoy
It just feels completely different.
- [35:29]
Jason Pfeiffer
My favorite line from the KFC thing is where they say it's been a hell of a week because that's really humanizing.
- [35:37]
Morgan Lavoy
Right?
- [35:37]
Jason Pfeiffer
Like, they're not. It's not. Oh, woe is me. But, you know, sounds like it's probably been a hell of a week. And I like that they did that because is a reminder without hitting you over the head with it, that this is a company that is actually just a bunch of humans and they're now trying to solve, like, a very complex problem and it's not good for you and it's not good for them. And McDonald's did the opposite. McDonald's was like, we are corporation, other corporation problem, you know, like, it just had no life to it.
- [36:12]
I will say this is like the businessy part is remember that KFC used to be an individual publicly traded company. Now it's part of Yum Brands, which owns a bunch of companies. McDonald's is a publicly traded company and they are just like an annoying bunch of regulations and other things.
- [36:35]
Yeah.
- [36:36]
It could be better even with all. All the, you know.
- [36:39]
Morgan Lavoy
Yeah.
- [36:40]
Jason Pfeiffer
And the. Whatever, you know, else they're dealing with.
- [36:42]
I had a nice conversation with Frank Blake many years ago. He was. He was the CEO of Home Depot when it had its, like, gigantic hack. And he told me about what that was like, and he said one of his tenants was that the primary objective is over communication with the customer and wherever it is, not extremely dangerous to do so. Don't listen to the lawyers. Like, the lawyers are going to provide the safest legal route. But that may come into conflict with over communicating with and maintaining trust with the customer. And, and he always wanted to optimize for that. So Home Depot is a publicly traded company and he, you know, he managed to navigate that. So it is, it is possible. But anyway, you know, even if we don't have a bunch of CEOs of publicly traded companies listening to the show right now and instead just leaders of their own lives and careers and companies, I would say like just be Frank Blake and KFC and just over index on human communication and connection and you pretty much can't go wrong.
- [37:50]
Morgan Lavoy
Great. All right, that concludes this episode of Funny Business. I give you guys both an A in funny business, but not funny business that you would need anti seduction training for.
- [38:03]
Jason Pfeiffer
Yeah, I was going to say I give you an F in anti seduction. Too much seduction, Morgan. It's getting out of control. Help Wanted is a production of Money News Network. Help Wanted is hosted by me, Jason.
- [38:17]
Pfeiffer and me, Nicole Lapin. Our executive producer is Morgan Lavoy. If you want some help, email our helpline@helpwantedoneynewsnetwork.com for the chance to have some of your questions answered on the show. And follow us on Instagramoneynews and TikTokoneyNewsNetwork.
- [38:33]
Nicole Lapin
For exclusive content and to see our beautiful faces.
- [38:36]
Jason Pfeiffer
Maybe a little dance?
- [38:38]
Oh, I didn't sign up for that.
- [38:39]
Alright, well, talk to you soon, Sam.