AI Slop Is Killing Your Brand

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Art of the Brand – "AI Slop Is Killing Your Brand"

Host: Third Eye Insights (Camille Moore & Phillip Millar)
Date: May 7, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the dangers of letting artificial intelligence, particularly generative tools like ChatGPT, dilute the authenticity and creative value of modern brands—what the hosts repeatedly term "AI slop." Camille Moore and Phillip Millar dissect how overreliance on AI-generated content is eroding real brand-building, the resurgence of in-person and "real world" marketing, the importance of authentic messaging, and topical case studies on cultural moments (Met Gala, Devil Wears Prada 2, Ulta events), industry trends, and the complexities of brand stances in today's charged climate.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Power of Real-World Brand Experiences

Timestamps: 01:04–04:19

• Oversaturation of Digital Marketing:
  • Camille: "Digital, like organic in-feed, socials or paid ads are overdone if you aren’t adding into your marketing mix the in real life component." (01:09)
• Return of Tactile Advertising:
  • Phillip notes a growing attention to billboards and physical ads: "A well-placed billboard actually attracts way more of my attention than it ever did before...because it's in my world, in my landscape." (01:37)
• Tangible Legitimacy:
  • Seeing people physically interact with a brand or product imparts a sense of "legit-ness" you can't get online alone.
  • Example: DTC brands with plateauing online growth pivoting to real-world moments for community building (02:24).
• Arbitrage in CPM: Billboards and IRL activations are now undervalued as everyone else floods digital.

2. AI Content Slop Threatens Brand Authenticity

Timestamps: 06:50–14:19

• Lazy Marketing vs. Real Creativity:
  • Camille: "There was a lot of billboards where you can tell that it was ChatGPT writing. And that is extremely problematic..." (07:56)
  • Phillip: "If you get a billboard and you make an ad like you would on digital, you’re a dummy." (08:35)
• AI-Language Fatigue:
  • "What ChatGPT was supposed to save us time, but it’s actually taking longer to read things because people are speaking in ChatGPT emails to each other and it’s not concise..." (09:29)
  • Overuse of cliches and lack of meaning is draining audience attention.
• Quote – On Conciseness:
  • Phillip: "As Churchill said, you know, it takes an hour to write a five minute speech and five minutes to write an hour speech." (10:20)
• Founder Engagement in Messaging:
  • The show criticizes founders for abdicating daily brand messages to junior staff or agencies reliant on AI prompts: "The founder should be so involved in that messaging..." (10:55)
• Meta & Automated Ad Creation:
  • Camille & Phillip dissect Meta’s goal of automating the entire ad-creation process, warning this strips brands of taste and individuality (12:17–13:21).

3. Monoculture & Manufactured Events in Pop Culture

Timestamps: 16:30–22:47

• Devil Wears Prada 2:
  • Massive, synchronized hype and in-person events helped drive unprecedented ticket sales ($233M in 48 hours).
  • The team explores whether the content even matters when “being there first” is what people want to post about:
    • "The ultimate product isn’t as important as the ability of people to say, I went to it." (18:07)
  • Return to Monoculture:
    • "Monoculture is how the world used to be…now it’s all niche-maxing. But there’s a desire to get back to those moments everyone talks about." (18:54, 19:47)
  • Sequels and remakes are used as cultural shortcuts—quality is less important than fueling FOMO and content for social feeds.

4. Scarcity, Experience, and Hype in Event & Retail Marketing

Timestamps: 23:16–27:57

• Ulta & Sephora Consumer Events:
  • Ulta’s beauty con: 3 million tried to buy 3,000 tickets—"Turning retail into a cultural moment." (23:16)
  • Scarcity and exclusive access drive hype and perceived value, but too much exclusivity risks undercutting reach and cultural penetration.
• Phone-Free Events:
  • Surge of phone-free events (+567%) as Gen Z craves real connection.
    • Camille: "Camp Snap cameras are so big...so they can still take photos in the event but not have their phone with them..." (28:24)
    • Phillip likens phone removal at events to old-school “gut checks”—a challenge as hard as not smoking/drinking (27:57).
  • QR code technology at sporting events: delivers pro event photos so you can enjoy the moment without your phone (29:28–30:02).

5. Met Gala and ‘Taste Arbitrage’

Timestamps: 30:08–38:55

• Tech Funding at the Met Gala:
  • Shift from elite celebrity/culture curation to ‘highest bidder’ approach; tech firms (Meta, Amazon, Snapchat) buy up tables ($350k each), changing the event’s cachet.
  • Camille: "The companies that have the most money but lack taste are the ones that are buying up that space." (30:42)
  • Debate over what happens to “taste” when admission is only about who can pay, not who actually fits the cultural/creative remit.
• Who Decides What’s ‘Cool’?:
  • Donatella Versace, Kardashian-era admissions, and recurring criticism of tastelessness: "It’s also what’s wrong with the industry ... they decide who’s cool." (35:38)
  • The distinction between being culturally relevant vs. genuinely tasteful is interrogated.
• Quote – On Selling Out:
  • Phillip: "We know what you are, we're just negotiating on price. And what the Met Gala has shown is ... as soon as it got to another price point, they were willing to sell their taste." (36:17)

6. Brand Collabs, World-Building, and “Permission Architecture”

Timestamps: 39:12–43:16

• Collaborative Products:
  • Example: Hanzaji x Burberry swimwear—two brands create a third "mini-world," growing both customer bases.
  • Camille: "They grant each other customers explicit permission to want both while co-authoring a third aesthetic universe that neither brand owned alone." (41:05)
• Collabs as Refresh Tools:
  • Used to drive traffic, renew interest, and tell new stories (42:19–42:41).

7. Evolution of Celebrity Brand Roles: From Ambassador to “Friend of the House”

Timestamps: 43:43–47:34

• Micro-Endorsement Language:
  • Tag Heuer appoints Josh Houston as a “friend of the house” rather than ambassador—lighter contract, test-run, evolving how brands may access influencer relationships.
  • Camille: "Does that change the contract obligation? If you’re a brand that might not be able to afford an ambassadorship...friend allows you a cheaper contract, lighter imagery..." (47:03)
• Phillip critiques pseudo-friend language:
  • "It reminds me of the Shakespeare quote that talks about friends like that. Sir, who serves and seeks for gain and follows, but for form will pack when it begins to rain..." (45:47)

8. Internet Virality and Brand Risk: John Summitt vs. RIMOWA

Timestamps: 47:34–50:59

• Case Study:
  • DJ John Summitt goes viral for destroying (and setting fire to) his RIMOWA suitcases, complaining of breakages.
  • RIMOWA’s robust warranty is noted, but the question is whether the stunt is good or bad branding for RIMOWA.
  • Phillip: "RIMOWA should...take the initiative...you don’t embody the spirit of what we, as sophisticated travelers are." (50:45).
• Cultural Moment:
  • Brands must be agile in responding to meme moments—potential to turn negative PR into reinforcement of brand values.

9. Las Vegas: When Pricing Kills Culture

Timestamps: 51:23–57:55

• Vegas Blues:
  • Dramatic price inflation has boxed out the middle class; luxury clubs are empty, the core experience has shifted.
  • Young visitors pre-drink, avoid actual purchases, only show up for the ‘scene’ and content.
  • Nightclubs are shifting from glitz/talent to service because classic revenue drivers (drinks, tickets) are unsustainable. (55:56)
• Phillip: "The customer will always fight back against the system that's gaming them." (55:56)
• Suggested Fix:
  • Nightclubs should ban cell phones on the dance floor to restore vibe, allow for interaction: "If you're seen with a cell phone in a club, you get kicked out." (57:26)

10. Brand Courage & Conformity: The Philz Coffee Pride Flag Dilemma

Timestamps: 58:00–67:10

• Philz Coffee Flip-Flop:
  • Company removed all flags (including the Pride flag) to focus on inclusivity, faced backlash, reversed decision.
  • Camille: "When you make a decision, you gotta be firm...to flip flop then you show to have no brand." (58:39)
  • Both hosts critique performative activism and call for founders to have the courage to stick with convictions, not simply appease the loudest groups.
• COVID-Driven Cancel Culture Hangover:
  • Phillip: "Covid really amplified this...it lingers in the psychology of some business owners, and it's making them scared to try things because of this fear of criticism." (62:41)
• Blacklisting by Silence:
  • Real-world example: a client was blacklisted for failing to make a public stance on a polarizing issue, even as a non-political professional.
• Final Insight:
  • Founders should feel empowered to hold unique (or apolitical) perspectives and focus on what genuinely fits their brand and customer base: "To really win in the current landscape is to have a perspective or point of view...that's where AI can't replace you." (65:54–66:33)

---

Memorable Quotes

• Camille:

  • "Your social post that’s going out every day is your brand’s message to the world. It’s problematic that so many brands are utilizing ChatGPT..." (10:55)
  • "Monoculture is how the world used to be..." (18:54)

• Phillip:

  • "If you get a billboard and you make an ad like you would on digital, you’re a dummy." (08:35)
  • "The customer will always fight back against the system that’s gaming them." (10:10, 55:56)
  • "If you commit, burn the ships. Be the first to do it." (61:20)
  • "We know what you are, we're just negotiating on price...they were willing to sell their taste." (36:17)

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• Beware of AI Slop:
  Don’t let generative content erode your brand’s unique voice or substitute for creative rigor.
• Embrace Real-World Engagement:
  IRL activations, billboards, and live community moments are undervalued but increasingly powerful for brand legitimacy.
• Scarcity & Eventization Work:
  Whether it’s Ulta beauty cons or movie premieres, the “I was there” factor is still a significant driver of attention.
• Taste Still Matters—But Who Decides?
  The shift in who holds the cultural megaphone (tech money vs. creative taste) is changing event and luxury brand dynamics.
• Courage & Consistency:
  Brands, especially founders, must be willing to take (and hold) stands that fit their true values, not just the zeitgeist.
• Authenticity is Irreplaceable:
  In a world awash with “AI conversations,” genuine, concise, and meaningful messaging—paired with brave, contextual decisions—wins every time.

---

This summary was compiled to provide a robust, accessible understanding of the episode’s major points, insights, and quotable moments for professionals, founders, and branding enthusiasts.

Transcript

[A]

Most conversations are AI. That's why AI is so strong.

[B]

And the best marketing sells something to a client that they don't know they need yet.

[A]

I find the theater icky. I don't want to make the time for it.

[B]

The customer will always fight back against the system that's gaming them.

[A]

I think when you make a decision, you got to be firm on your decision because to flip flop you show to have no brand.

[B]

So like if you're seen with a cell phone in a club, you get kicked out.

[A]

They didn't say anything against it, but just because they said nothing at all, they should be blacklisted. She's only dressed by the same designers that are at every fashion show.

[B]

So we' didn't just catch on fire as a defect. He set it on fire cuz he's upset.

[A]

When you look at Donatella Versace, like is that really who is the pinnacle of cool?

[B]

If you get a billboard and you make an ad like you would on digital, you're a dummy.

[A]

What a brand, what a brand, what a brand, what a mighty Again now. What a brand, what a brand, what a brand. What a mighty good brand. All right, well, welcome back to another week of Art of the Brand.

[B]

Part of the brand podcast studio is under renovation, so we're doing it setting ye.

[A]

All right, so let's kick this episode off today. I want to talk about two things we realized before we left la. And the first is the importance of how your brand needs to show up in real life. Digital, like organic in feed, socials or paid ads are overdone if you aren't adding into your marketing mix. The in real life component. I want to break this down because you've actually said to me several times how disproportionately valuable outhouse marketing can be, like billboard or an activation or doing something where people can act, they can actually experience it in real life.

[B]

I just think there's been a bit of a switch. So originally everybody was doing tactile ads like billboards, newspapers, tv, radio. And then digital comes along and people are slow adopters. But now everybody is now flooding the digital world and humans crave a real world experience. And so I found driving around that a well placed billboard actually attracts way more of my attention than it ever did before. Right. Because it's actually something real in front of me and I'm not scrolling and it's because it's in my world, in my landscape. As long as it's not cluttered. I think they're having disproportionate impact now in terms of arbitrage on advertising spend. So I think we're suggesting to more and more people find the right real spaces to put your brand in so people can see it in the real world, not just on a screen.

[A]

I've been saying this a lot to clients and I think it's interesting through the lens of how people measure how real your brand is. And when you see something in real life in a physical space or place, or you see like a small line or people going in to buy or like carrying your bags out in the real world, there's something very tangible and measurable to its legitness. And I've been actually saying this a lot to DTC brands that are kind of out there like they're at a plateau from their scalability and they need to take it another step. And the big reason is a lot of brands, especially like activewear or beauty, it's very simple. I don't want to say easy to get like a logo and branding done off of like a site like upwork, to get a manufacturer overseas to work directly with them through like an Alibaba or AliExpress and to manufacture this brand online that can get some kind of success, especially if you're like five or six years old for where the cost per acquisition was on Facebook was much lower. Because actually I just did a podcast with PMNs from heaven Mayhem and she was saying that her original cost per click on our cost per acquisition on Facebook was $3 and now it's 35 because she started in like 2022, 2023. And now the measure is community. Because if you have community, it means your brand is legit. And you often get community when you invest in those kind of brand moments, which are those more like out of house experiences or activations. And it's interesting for your brain to think through because a lot of brands are like, I can't afford that. I can't justify it. What's the ROI when paid ads give you like direct metrics. But there's something to this. I want to call it in real life effect, where people online that are seeing it disproportionately think your brand has more weight and value because other people are prepared to show up for it.

[B]

So digital media can't be a way just to cheapen your advertising budget, you know, in one spend because it's easier to use ChatGPT and put a bunch of slop online and you can be a DTC brand and build some recognition and some revenue. But that brand at that point is being successful. But you can't become a great brand unless you transcend into people's lives in a real way. And I think as you're growing your revenue, we've seen some DTC companies that were doing lots of DTC revenue but then realized to go the next step to branding, they had to leave just the digital and get out into the real world.

[A]

I've actually got a real example of this right now of a brand I'm consulting on. They did 10 million last year and they're like a direct to consumer fashion brand. And when you look at her feed, you would never guess that it's a $10 million fashion brand. And the biggest issue for like her wanting to grow is you have to show the community, you have to show that people are wearing it. You have to show that if you did a billboard, the like the implied understanding is that there's enough people that know that that brand exists because they're also driving past it, that it creates that halo of this brand is real. And there's a lot of these brands, well, that have sales, that focus on selling through paid ads. But they can't grow to become more legit for these founders until you invest in investing in that community. Because otherwise your socials are capped for what you can achieve. Because without having like real people showing up and like engaging in the brand, you can only post for so long photoshoot photos that were like pre planned months in advance.

[B]

If you look at human psychology, when I'm scrolling on my phone, I'm kind of inoculating myself. I'm trying to against ads or against experiences. But when you're driving in your car as a passenger or like me, you have your self drive on. When you're looking out the window, you have like a big horizon which humans like and you're more open to some messaging. And so good billboards actually can command more attention because it's not surrounded by a bunch of swipe throughs. Right. It's sitting in the landscape. And that's a way to have your brand imprint on your customer's mind. So I'm saying is there's a way to do billboards. It's not the old traditional way of having 100 of them, but finding the right one at the right time is very, very good.

[A]

It has a disproportionate upside for intangible value that your brand is legit in a sea of digital only brands.

[B]

Yeah. And the other reason why I wanted to mention it is one of the biggest mistakes marketers make is they think they have to sell a product to a client who knows they need something. And a lot of the time your future customer doesn't yet know they need it. And the best marketing sells something to a client that they don't know they need yet. And when you see a billboard, it kind of stands out. It's not cluttered. It might remind somebody, oh, I haven't been to get Botox in a while or I haven't done this in a while. So it's actually, you're not just doing this targeted, targeted, targeted dtc. You're actually out there speaking to customers before they know they need you.

[A]

Well, it's funny you say that because like Way had a billboard on sales Sunset and it was talking about their new like bonding serum for their hair. And I saw it enough times driving down Sunset. And then when we were out for dinner with Shani, she was like, hey, yeah, did you see that? Ouai has a new bonding serum? And I feel like those conversations happen more often when you see a brand making a statement on a billboard than

[B]

only on socials because it's isolated from

[A]

the clutter, from the noise. Yeah, but, but what's interesting about what you're saying is for like the old way versus the new way, I would, I think a segue for this segment though is the but needing to resist ChatGPT. Like it like, but needing to resist ChatGPT. Because I will say that there was a lot of billboards where you can tell that it was chat GPT writing. And that is extremely problematic because it works completely against the upside to what billboards can offer when the the text feels prompted from the same machine that's writing so much of the slop online.

[B]

The rub is in the creative, right? Like if you get a billboard and you make an ad like you would on digital, you're a dummy. You might as well just throw your money out. But you need to be creative to capture people's attention.

[A]

That's its own segue section of the value for the people who are writing the copy on your brand needs to be so high because you have to hire someone that's almost not using ChatGPT because it's so problematic of how defaulted the industry has gone so quickly to prompting ChatGPT to create the content. You even see it with captions on social media. Like there's just so many brands that are hiring agencies that are now because it's going to like a social media coordinator, the lowest on the rung within the agency. They're outsourcing the caption writing to ChatGPT and it, it's ruining the brand.

[B]

First of all, I think what ChatGPT was supposed to save us time, but it's actually taking longer to read things because people are speaking in ChatGPT emails to each other and it's not concise and you're seeing it in ads. It's got the words AI. And I don't mean to say chatgpt AI. AI can capture what humans have said in the past and put it into something, but AI can't transform it into dynamic new ways to communicate a message to a new client base. Right. And that's what a human has to do to synergize it all. But what, what you're seeing is laziness in marketing and advertising. So you're just seeing ChatGPT speaking to each other in ads. And it's when I go to read a caption, sometimes I can tell it immediately it's AI because it's so long and it's taking me so long to get to the point. Right. As opposed to giving me a caption that really has a lot of words

[A]

and there's no meaning. Like there's nothing to the thing.

[B]

Yeah. So conciseness is as, as Churchill said, you know, it takes an hour to write a five minute speech and five minutes to write an hour speech. So the skill set in writing something concise and artistic and perfect.

[A]

I want to go harder. I think that a lot of founders are, they're overwhelmed by how much marketing and branding has to go out, that they're not as obsessed and involved in that kind of daily brand signal. Like your social post that's going out every day is your brand's message to the world. It's problematic that so many brands are utilizing ChatGPT to write their messaging, but it's, it's actually really hurting brands because they're, they seldom are connecting with the consumer when it's utilizing only prompting. And there's so many brands suffering from it right now. And when you actually sit back and think about it, that is the message that is coming from your brand every single day. Like the founder should be so involved in that messaging and how it's showing up and thinking behind it and it's become something that's below the founder to be involved in it.

[B]

Well, I think there's kind of an overlap between ads and content because like if meta is telling you you have to have 50 to 150 ads in a campaign, like it's Hard to write them as a human. So I think AI is being used to write 99% of those ads on Meta. But that's considered part of your social media strategy in there in a while. And so then you're doing your post daily and they're just using AI to write them as well.

[A]

Organic infeed is not the same as ads. You're not getting huge captions on organic on paid ads.

[B]

No, but I'm saying paid ads are being written by ChatGPT because there's so many ads have to be used now. You don't have a human writing them all. And so now you're downloading all of the ad writing to an AI. That's it. Meta is actually writing the ads now for you. Like Meta has gotten to a place where you can just say, this is my product, this is my goal. And then Meta will just do everything for you.

[A]

Yeah, but that's also designed so that the teacher who wants a side hustle in Grand Rapids, that's selling dropship product off of AliExpress, they can feel like they can start their own business. Like the people who are.

[B]

That's not it. That's not why Meta designed it at all. Meta designed it because they believe their AI platform is the best way to maximize revenue for the biggest companies in the world.

[A]

Okay, but you shouldn't. Like, the whole point is like if we're trying to stay competitive, it's not to have Meta write your ads when it's coming from the same machine. Like that lacks taste.

[B]

But Meta, well, we're moving on to this thing. But Meta has designed an AI component that wants to get to know your product, your brand, and then they just say give it to us and we will get you the best, better results than anything else.

[A]

It's interesting, but you're also conflating the point. Like when you were saying you have to do 15 to 50 creatives per month, a large chunk of that is often UGC Creative or AI. Like re edited content so that like the hook is better. Like you're slightly changing something. That content isn't text based. ChatGPT ruining.

[B]

No, no, I was supporting your point. I'm just saying that because so much is being made and so much is being thrown into AI, the founders are forgetting that their personal feed has to be uniquely authentic. Authentic and theirs. Right.

[A]

You can't have ads that say it's not this, it's that. And you can't.

[B]

Let's dive in.

[A]

Like, like, let's dive in. Or like the three Punchy, like one word, like sentences or like it's just it. It like that's extremely problematic to me.

[B]

And of course it's raining double M dashes everywhere I go.

[A]

The platform, I feel like actually people are. The are have caught on to that because that's just become like the baseline.

[B]

The thing that's taking me.

[A]

Baseline pejorative thing to rip apart. It's like it's not this. It's that like there's also just like the overuse of. There's a lot of signals and. But it's not even that. It's. There's so many words and it doesn't say anything. That's the sign because there's like looks when you first look at it, like it's going to read well and then you dig into it and it could have been two sentences and it's 12.

[B]

This is what I think might be of interest. And being in Hollywood, I think amplified this more than anything else. I think most human interaction now that I've experienced AI is like AI. Like the amount of conversations of nothingness is why AI, it's been so easy to replicate. So like when you're looking in your life, the conversations that you really enjoy generally aren't the small talk, you know, repeated phrases you use all the time. The conversations and engagement that mean something to you when you actually sit down and have an authentic engagement on a new topic when you're presenting your brand to the outside world. Don't be like a small talk conversation in a city. Like. Like make it so it's. It's a. It's something meaningful to the audience. I think use that as a platform because being in Hollywood, all I was, all I was reminding myself every day is that most of these conversations sound like an AI chat of what people are saying to each other, not listening to each other. It's just repeatable phrases. It's. It's crazy how. How conversation isn't really as deep and contextual as I thought it was. The conversation's depth is dependent on how much the individual cares about the person receiving it. And what was very clear in Hollywood is most people were talking past each other looking for somebody else who is of a higher status to go and talk to. And so that point that the conversation's depth is tied to how much you're investing in the person you're speaking to rather than just waiting to say your phrase, I think is relevant in marketing because you have to invest in the person you're speaking to, which is your audience, which Means don't use AI to speed it up.

[A]

You kind of intentionally slapped me down on that point so that. Well, you just said like you intentionally slapped me down so that it doesn't, it doesn't seem like anything that is refutable. But I don't think the point of tearing apart conversations that you had in Hollywood is. I think most conversations are AI. I think that's why AI is so strong, is that the majority of conversations that people have in a daily setting are easy back and forth like volleys.

[B]

That's obviously true. I just think it's amplified in Hollywood because it's not the deepest place for conversations. But yeah, it's like Hollywood is like a simulation on max of like conversations.

[A]

Okay, let's move on. So let's talk about some headlines. So Devil wears Prada makes 230 of its hundred million dollar budget in 48 hours, pulling in $233.6 million globally, becoming one of 2026 biggest openings. What do you think?

[B]

I think, I don't know if it was necessarily deliberate, but I think what we're. The pre marketing that was done, the hype that was done, the ability to become part of that movie before the movie, leverage this. People want in person experiences. And it seems like what they did, they created a reason to go to the theater for the opening so people could take pictures of it, could take pictures of the swag that came with it. It was actually a very strategic act to get people back into the theaters by kind of world building beforehand and by creating the luxury in person experience that people are craving.

[A]

Yeah. I think the way that they invested in world building and making it an experience 100% connects to this idea of like posting it on social media. Right. Like they created a moment that you want to post about it online because the hype was so big that you want to feel a part of it. And it worked. I knew a ton of people that went to the opening night that went to the premiere, which I'm, I'm intrigued by. I just, my question is like, how long does this go on for? Because I've heard really mixed reviews. A lot of people were like, they didn't lean into anything. There was nothing controversial. It was so desensitized vanilla. And then I heard people that were like, it was great. And often people that said it was great were not people that were like as invested into the first one.

[B]

I think it's going to play into another topic we have is that the ultimate product isn't as important as the ability of people to say, I went to it.

[A]

Yeah. And this is my opinion.

[B]

Right. And so all of that, to me, it seems like there was almost a military synchronization table to the launch of this, where they had so many different. Different angles going at once to build the hype. Like Hathaway being named prettiest one in the world, Oscars. This, that, like, it was all synchronized very nicely to finish with this opening.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I think the product isn't going to be that good, but they're going to have made all of their money, so it doesn't matter.

[A]

I think there's a strong desire for us to get back to monoculture. Right. And that's really what this signals. It was the same thing as, like, the Justin Bieber Coachella.

[B]

Can you explain just what monoculture is just to the layperson?

[A]

Monoculture is how the world used to be. Like, when the. The Red Rider BB gun came out, every kid wanted it for Christmas. You know, like, it was when there was. There wasn't all of the. It's now kind of considered niche maxing. That's like the 2026 word, where you weren't into these, like, sub niches where you were signaling your different desires. Like, there was in so many different genres of music and so many different, like, sub people that were interesting. So something like the Devil Wears Prada or the Just to be Refocella performance, we're finding there's these moments and there's obviously less than them, but they're more fleeting, where people want to kind of jump on it to give their opinion and point of view and perspective. And that's what you're saying is this idea of you want to go to it just to say whether you liked it or you didn't like it. And it's interesting because I was realizing this when I was scrolling yesterday through Apple TV and it was like Prime. And then I jumped to Netflix and I jumped to Hulu and then Disney. I just realized that the reason why you're getting so many remakes is it gives. When you're trying to decide on what to watch and there's something that you liked, and it came out with a second or third. It simplifies that decision making, and it brings you kind of more back to that idea of monoculture because the Devil Wears Prada was a moment for the woman who loved Gossip Girl and Sex and the City. And it was this site of like, this kind of feminine, iconic movie in time. So to come out with a second one is just an easy way to get views. Because so many people are going to have an opinion on it.

[B]

Yeah. It's just that sequels have a history of being garbage.

[A]

They don't need to be good.

[B]

They don't need to be good.

[A]

Because you'll get the clicks. Because I was really realizing that yesterday when it was. You were talking about, like, Spartacus or whatever, and you were like, on prime. And I was like, the reason why you're down to watch. That is your exact language was, I liked the first one. I wonder how they did the second one. And they can just get your view clicks because they can click. Like, they can.

[B]

Well, I actually just wanted to see how bad it was because I knew it was going to be horrible.

[A]

The views.

[B]

Yeah, like, for 10 minutes.

[A]

I know, but because I was like, this is shit. Like, let's turn this off. But the thing that I want to talk about in the Devil Boys, Prada too. And I want people's take on this. I have not gone and probably will not go because it's in a theater. And I just wonder if they did this like, as, like a UFC fight night. Like, if they charged $75 and you watched it at home home, how many more women over 30 would gather with, like, high quality sushi or, like chicken fingers of choice, organic or raising canes, whatever, like making a great sharkish board or pizza snacks and like, high quality wine. Would I get to sell it together? I find the theater icky. I just. I don't want to make the time for it. I just. It. I. My theater at home is better, I think.

[B]

I think industry is often held back by distribution channels that dominate. And so I think a lot of the production companies, they still believe they need these relationships with theaters. And so going, like, you didn't go to a theater to watch a UFC fight. There was only one stadium. Right. And so then you had to watch it in your house. But this is the type of thing that needs to be examined because there's all these theaters around, they don't think a pay per view night works. Whereas what you're saying is, yeah, people still go to the theater, but then people can also have events at their house. And it. It's a very. Somebody should take note of what you're saying here because it's something they should look at for the next premiere of an event like this.

[A]

But I still think a lot of people would go, if you charge such a crazy high premium and it would become such a headline that people would, like, battle it out on it. But if UFC can charge whatever, $185 for pay per view.

[B]

They don't anymore, but yeah, pays too.

[A]

Oh, until recently they got bought by Paramount.

[B]

Yeah, but like until recently, like tons of money.

[A]

Like I would, especially with wearable, like blockchain is like you could encrypt it. Like, I don't know, I just feel like there's something there.

[B]

What people have to understand is your customers want to be seen as doing it first. Right? So I wouldn't go to a theater because I'm like, look, I'll wait for it to come out on streaming and I can watch it my thing. But when they create an event like the Devil Wears Prada, people want to be on the day it debuts. So allowing it to be a pay per view event would work because people want to post about being on the first day. They don't care to watch the product cheaper later because they don't get care about the product.

[A]

So I've got three more headlines to go through here. I've got some more headlines to go through. So the first One here is 3 million people tried to buy 3,000 tickets in 71 minutes as Ulta's consumer facing event sells out, instantly turning retail into a cultural moment. We didn't talk about how Ulta basically did the exact same thing as Sahoria, but they did theirs in Florida instead of la. And in case you missed it, they're basically these like beauty cons. So they rent out these massive event spaces. They're like multiple floors and it's like a conference, but it's. The booths are all the brands that sell within their retail stores. And I just think it's so fascinating that three, like they only sold 3,000 tickets, but 3 million people tried to buy it because of how much free shit they gave away and how much that they invested in experience and how hungry people are for experience.

[B]

It's interesting where that market is going because in the old days this was just called a convention, like where you'd rent out a hotel and then, you know, you would do it for the industry. But they're kind of creating that convention model for the consumer in beauty. And then you're getting people to pay to come and get a few free samples and post about it.

[A]

A ton of free samples.

[B]

I just wonder like if the cost is 400 bucks is the general mission. Getting 400 more in samples.

[A]

I would say that was where from a, a value standpoint I felt that the, like that Sephora disproportionately provided value because the VIP ticket was no more than 700. I want to say it was 550. I knew this, I knew this number to be, to be true before. The VIP bags that we got alone were thousands of dollars in product. And then you got a bunch of free stuff when you were there, plus you got the experience of walking around. And it was scarcity to be able to get in.

[B]

Did, did Ultra select those people based on profiles or influence or was it random or.

[A]

It was like Taylor Swift tickets. Like you had to be on to get the tickets. That's why it was like 3 million people were loading the site and only 3,000 got in. Sephora was the same thing too. Sephora sold out in like five minutes or something.

[B]

Would it have been smarter for them to kind of select from 3 million applicants to get the right people in there?

[A]

I just, I don't know what the variable of right is.

[B]

Well, if they looked at profiles or if they looked at what, you know what I mean? Like, if they're trying to get brand

[A]

application, what they should do is I think it's actually worth it for them to extend it. So I don't think it should be two days. It should be, honestly probably a week. And they should probably be able to get through way more people. I think the only.

[B]

But then the scarcity dies because people, it's an event again, people want to be at an event because on that first day event, it's got social media cache. On day five, nobody cares, right? It's just free stuff.

[A]

So he hasn't known that that was 3 million people tried to buy in the first 71 minutes. It definitely has more cachet than only 3,000 people getting in. Like you could let in 12,000 or 15,000 based on those numbers is my point. Like, I agree with you from a scarcity standpoint, but I don't think it has to be that scarce for this level of event. Like, they're not curating it. Like it's not. There's definitely space.

[B]

I disagree with you on that.

[A]

For them to do more.

[B]

Okay, yeah, all right, I disagree with you. It makes it an event that people want to keep. As soon as you make it 12 days, then the next year it's not going to be as interesting.

[A]

I agree with what you're saying. On the face of it, obviously, I believe in scarcity as a great tool for branding. But Ulta, I almost didn't see it all on my feed. And I think it's because maybe to your point, they're not selecting the right people. Is the, is the question which makes it a bit elitist and that you have to have so many followers. That's the reason why I don't love that idea.

[B]

But no, but I wouldn't. Yeah but I mean you can, you can also be gorilla about how you select. It's not just the top people, but it's people who have some feet.

[A]

I just don't even. I don't know if I would have even seen Sephora if not for us being there as media. Like I think that they're at a point where the numbers are actually too small for it to penetrate unless they make it like a revolve fest where they bring in like all of these influencers. And I think that's a reasonable data point for consideration. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, but if you're doing all of this and only 3,000 people and it's like the first people that show up, like that's why the Taylor Swift things interesting is at least there's. I'm making it up 51 shows, right. So by the time the like 21st has happened or like the 11th or 12th, it starts to build momentum because when we were in Nashville for work it was already like a cultural event. Next one. Phone free events surge 567% percent as Gen Z trades screens for real world connection.

[B]

Like I actually see phone free events are going to be the equivalent of like the gut checks we used to do in the military. Like have a party and ask people not to bring their phones. Like I think it's as, it's as tough for people to go phone free for a while. Like it's almost like you have to curate these events and make it look like see if you can go two days without your phone. You know what I mean? Like and it's a reality show seeing people have like start scratching their face because they don't have a phone and get forced to interact with common Pinterest

[A]

did it at Coachella as like a brand activation. I'm hearing so many colleagues, children. That's why like the camp Snap cameras are so big and there's like all these digital cameras people are using that are like screenless or don't connect to your phone. So they can still take photos in the event but not have their phone with them, which is interesting. There's actually a lot of kids are actually not even also giving out their cell phone numbers. They only share their like Snapchat contact. So it's like a scarce resource to have someone's Cell phone number, which is interesting.

[B]

We're actually like a type of cyborg at the moment. Because this phone is a computer interface that is augmenting to our personal life. It's just not injected into us. So it is nice to go to. People should have more parties where all phones get left at the front door and see what happens. You know, I think one of the things that they need to. People really need to address, because when you look at Woodstock, which, by the way, was free, and it was all about the music versus Coachella, because I. I wasn't there, but it's nice. That's fine. I was not alive for it because I read.

[A]

Is that a wenchy thing to say?

[B]

I read.

[A]

Wasn't it around your time?

[B]

No. You should know the history of Woodstock. But anyhow, they listen to it. But at Coachella, everybody's phone is up the whole time. Even in 2016 or 2018, phones weren't up. People were like, listen, listening. And back then, you hold the lighter up. So I think events. Our producer were saying. Our producer was saying, at sporting events now, they take pictures of everybody in the stands. They take pictures of everything. And at the end, you can scan a QR code and the AI will find you in the stands so that you don't have to take pictures of the event. You can actually experience the event.

[A]

That's very cool.

[B]

And they should do that at freaking concerts. Because why is everybody holding a phone up the whole concert?

[A]

Like, literally. That is my question. Okay, let's get into the headline. So the Met Gala isn't just sponsored by tech. It's almost entirely funded by tech. So it's official that the devil wears Amazon. Let's break down.

[B]

They stole my life. I thought that up. Disagreed. I was. Okay, let's go.

[A]

He didn't.

[B]

Okay, keep going.

[A]

Okay, so let's get into this. So it's kind of crazy. So the Met Gala was yesterday, and this is the first year where you can truly see the tides have changed in that.

[B]

Ooh, the tides have changed.

[A]

The tech. Top that a large majority of the tables were purchased by tech companies. And it's interesting because to me, it signals the. The kind of move to taste arbitrage, where the companies that have the most money but lack taste are the ones that are buying up that space. Because Met Gala has so much taste but no money. So it's interesting of where that relationship is kind of being symbiotically complimented.

[B]

Look, there's the snobbiness of taste. Always makes me laugh. Because there's the people in New York City who think they have taste because they're wearing ridiculously expensive purses that aren't worth it, but they self declare that they have taste and. But they don't have the money. So what happens is taste changes. So maybe the tech world is going to change what taste is. It's not going to be wearing those types of clothes. Taste could move towards just wearing the same clothes every day. Well, but the Met Gala is focused on making money. And when it tries to price itself at the highest point, at some point, you can't control it anymore.

[A]

It's an interesting concept. So to break it down, Meta and Instagram. So the tables at the met gala are $350,000 a table, which many in the industry see as gauche for how expensive it is. But the whole point of the Met Gala is to raise money for the Met. So it is a charity.

[B]

Was the point of the Met Gala to raise money for the Met or was it an excuse to try to be cool in a social circle by donating money?

[A]

Well, that's what made it so brilliant, is that she understands true scarcity in that you couldn't basically before you couldn't buy your way in. But it was a charity event, so you had to be invited. And many people in the industry say that the event has really lost it, lost its cachet because it's mostly influencers and now, like tech billionaires, it's lost that kind of that middle space of like celebrity and taste. Taste. And it wasn't just celebrity alone. It was an honor to be invited. And I have inside knowledge on this. Like, a lot of really, like top models that I think are like, hot in the sense of culturally relevant were not invited or welcome to come to the Met Gala this year. And that's where kind of people are criticizing the Met Gala's brand, is that it's lost sight of that taste. But it's only focused on kind of the gaucheness of raising money. And what she had done so well, it is, according to people in the industry, is that she would balance the ability to raise money. It made the people that had the money want to be there and spend the money because the event was worth being at.

[B]

Look, money can ruin taste as well, right? Like if, if you kept the price point at $50,000, you could, you could control the, you can control the members and still have a cool, a cool event, but when you want to raise as much money as possible, you're going to get boxed out at $350,000. That's a hell of a lot of money for. For 99% of the people. But it's nothing to these tech bros.

[A]

No, that's why I'm saying is to me, it's taste arbitrage because. So the Met last year raised $31 million, but Meta's Q1's earnings was 55 billion revenue alone. So a $350,000 table for Mark Zuckerberg is literally the proportional cost of a $10 Starbucks copy. Like, it's just. It's pennies. And that's what's so interesting, is that. So Shop My and Snapchat and Meta and Amazon, all of these brands have tables because they. They're the ones who have so much money, they're controlling society with their platforms. But they have no taste. Like, they have no, like, culture cache through the tasteless.

[B]

But The Met Gala 20 years ago, like, was Ford trying to buy a table? And she would say no, because it would. Is it. Because it was priced at a point that the people she wanted there could afford it it. And so could the big companies, but now they've priced it so that only the big companies can afford it. Right?

[A]

So it's priced at a point where, like, the industry actually thinks it's g, like how expensive it is. It become go. And the only one that can afford it are the ones that don't have taste. So.

[B]

And. And G, you know, I'm sure she's a good person, but, you know, Anna Wintour I don't think would have ever been caught dead with Lauren Sanchez, you know, in the past, from a taste perspective. If you look at their choice of. Of clothing, and now they're everywhere together.

[A]

That's the whole criticism. The only thing that kind of sucks is I don't know why we're so critical of Lauren Sanchez. Truthfully, I think that there's a lot of people who've been at the Met whose partners were on the tackier side of things. Like, she's not really the problem.

[B]

I didn't think that was the case. I thought in the past, like, it avoided, like, tacky, gauche wealth, like, for, you know, and. And Jeff Bezos at the Oscars is wearing a $17Amazon shirt, right? So, like, a $17Amazon shirt is the opposite of what, you know, the fashion industry is trying to promote.

[A]

It's also what's wrong, though, with the industry is that they decide who's cool.

[B]

Oh, the mean girl.

[A]

Like, when you look at Donatello Versace, like, is that really who is the pinnacle of cool. Like, is that really who is like, not from my perspective, you know, like, and I think the more large issue is it the people who should be there should at least be within the realm of like, taste and culture. It shouldn't be priced to the point where it's only the kind of like megalith apps that can buy, that can buy in. Like, that's when the place loses it. Like, it can't only be focused on that. Where is the taste stack?

[B]

There's an old joke where a man asked, when will you have sex with me for $10 million? And she goes, yes. And then he goes, will you have sex with me for $50? She goes, no. What do you think I a prostitute? And he goes, well, we know what you are. We're just negotiating on price. And what the Met Gala has shown is that they were inclusive and self contained at one price point, but as soon as it got to another price point, they were willing to sell their taste.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

To the highest bidder.

[A]

It's a great way of saying it. And my last point on the Lauren Sanchez Bezos before we move on is I think that she's pretty culturally relevant. Like, for all the criticism around it.

[B]

Like, she is definitely culturally relevant. Is she, is she stylish?

[A]

Like, what does that mean? Like, when she's being dressed by all the same designers? Like, Lauren isn't going to. Like, she's not Mandavi's wife. That's like resisting designer brands and is like showing up in like, like, that's not her. The whole thing is she's only dressed by the same designers that are at every fashion show. That's why their wedding was such a big deal. It had like every star studded celebrity. So. So it.

[B]

No, you're right. They kind of put an unfair target on her because some of her clothes are sexual. But then when you look at the Oscar dresses, the ones that had pictures of it were sexual. But it's because she's from a business perspective rather than celebrity that they call her Ghost.

[A]

It's kind of becomes a bit of an Evita story, right? Like, she slept her way to the top. And like people that, people who like people around her that know her think she's a brilliant woman that got exactly what she wanted. Like, she wanted to be with a guy of the caliber of Bezos and like, good for her. Like, if she's like, I just, I don't know how that's not different than the people who make it in these adjacent industries, like, really where the criticism on the Met Gala fell is when they allowed Kim Kardashian to come in 13 years ago. And then kind of the kind of ripple down effect of when you started saying yes to people that were like less like traditional celebs, what that ended up allowing and it allowed like sisters, like the Demelio sisters and like other, like Addison Ray and like people who were not at the Kardashian level. Like for the Kardashians to have been as scrutinized 13 years ago to show up for how low the bar has gotten is why people think that the Lauren Bezos is passe. But I think Lauren Bezos is closer to the. The A list celebrities and like, like a. An Addison Ray. Like, do you even know who Addison Ray is?

[B]

I do not exactly. But I do enjoy seeing the New York versus LA kind of competition because, you know, when we talk New York wants to say we're still it and la, you know, kind of is it in terms of weather and where the brands are.

[A]

I don't know where the conversation caliber

[B]

is, but yeah, no, but kind of seeing. But the same type of stuff exists in, in every social strata where the cool people are always trying to find ways to exclude other people. And how that relates to our listeners, I'm not sure. But focus on your customers, speak to them and make money.

[A]

All right, let's move on. So the next thing that was really interesting is Hangziji did a collab with Burberry. So in case you don't know who hangs, Aji is there was that iconic dress in Pretty Woman that has like the tie in the middle and there's like two tone and that is Hangziji and it's a brand that's out of Australia. And he has like an iconic kind of crinkle fabric and. And it's now famous for its bathing suits, although it does have clothing like that dress. And they collab with Burberry, which obviously Burberry has an entire line of things very famous brand. But for many who don't know, Burberry actually has a really iconic bathing suit line. It's been like a clear line extension to the brand because the, the piping kind of on a bathing suit is like so iconic and it's such an easy.

[B]

Do they do men's bathing suits?

[A]

They do both, yeah. Men's and women's. The Hanseiji collab was only women. But the reason why I think it's fascinating is that you're seeing this trend in branding where you get these Same industry collabs and they're not cannibalizing the other's market share. And I want to break down why it's interesting and how it's kind of world building because this collab in particular made me want this third brand that the two created without hurting either brand. And it's a really fascinating psychological kind of understanding. So let me break it down. So you've been seeing a lot of collabs like this in the space the row collab with Birkenstocks, Amy Leandor, Amy Leandore, Ald collab with New Balance, Loewe with On, Jacquemoux with Nike. The list goes on and on. And the thing that's interesting is that it could be defined as the idea of permission architecture and which is this idea that it's a structural move where two same industry brands grant each other customers explicit permission to want both while co authoring a third aesthetic universe that neither brand owned alone.

[B]

Personally, I think Burberry swim should go. Should just put their swimsuits in something that looks like the talented Mr. Ripley.

[A]

What? How did we lose you on this?

[B]

Remember that iconic gone.

[A]

His brain left the conversation. How do I bring you back in?

[B]

I don't know, you did lose me somewhere along the line there. Let's talk about football.

[A]

No, I want to talk about this. I think it's fascinating, especially if people that listen that are in beauty, that are in fashion. This idea of identity stacking is a fascinating and the reason why it's interesting is it makes your brand feel fresh, renew. And it's something that I've been thinking a lot about this past year. Why do brands do this? Because it's very hard to get customers back onto your website to browse and shop your entire collection unless you have something interesting and new that keeps you kind of talking top of mind.

[B]

Because people are spending so much on stuff these days that you're not fighting to keep your audience just in your container. Because it's like a scarcity mindset. If they buy that, they won't buy mine. It's understanding that people are actually going to buy a bunch of different clothing. And so sharing audience between the two will just increase revenue of both rather than increasing revenue of 1 to the expense of the other.

[A]

Well, I just think it's smart for brands to do it because it allows you to feel like you've got it's world building, right? Like you're actually, actually building this larger world where a customer feels a part of it. Like if I was to Buy the, like that collab and I wear it and I get a compliment. I instantly want to tell someone that it was two brands that got together to create the super piece. Like this third.

[B]

It's a story.

[A]

It's a story. And it was cool because when I looked at it, it was so iconic, like the Hungzaji fabric. But then it had like the Burberry piping. Like, it really was the perfect collab to achieve this theme. It's like Nike skims. Like the Nike skim sent us some stuff. I find the stuff so much cooler because it's skims in Nike than if it was Nike alone.

[B]

Yeah, I didn't like that collab. I thought it was dumb, but sure, thanks. But in your own businesses, think about strategic collabs, you know, not just working in your own bubble. Think about how you can strategically collab with somebody in your echo sphere. That makes sense.

[A]

Yep. Blind. All right, so, so next talk, let's talk about friend of the house. So Tagore. Basically they. So tag who are. Which I really have never said out loud. Tag who are.

[B]

Look, I'm not going to make any, any comments because I'm already the villain on this podcast. So let's just move on.

[A]

Why don't we just rip apart some conversations some more that we had in Hollywood? So tag. I'm gonna go with that one.

[B]

It's taking fourth of my eye. Let's go.

[A]

Oh, my God. Okay, so, so, so tag this week announced it had a brand partnership with this actor called Josh Houston, who is pretty well known with the Gen Z crowd. He is a Sydney, Anglo, Sri Lankan heritage, Australian born gentleman, good looking guy. He's got kind of darker skin, lighter eyes. The young ladies love him. Love you. Maybe the young boys do too. And what I thought was really interesting is that they call, they're calling him a friend of the house instead of an ambassadorship. And I thought that language was interesting for our brand owners to consider or maybe to criticize. So the reason why this is interesting is all major brand houses in jewelry and fashion, in watches, tend to latch on to celebrity ambassadorships. And an ambassadorship is a really big deal. It's a huge contract, it's got a big ask and it's like it's a huge appointment. You're like the face of the fragrance or the face of the house. I do a lipa right now with blueberry. What Tag is basically doing is like a try before you buy concept where they're not calling this gentleman the ambassador. He's a friend of the house. So it's like a cheaper contract, lighter imagery, less pressure to see how it performs.

[B]

They're just creating categories of ambassadors. Right. Like it's not the head ambassador, it's like just a micro ambassador named as a friend. Isn't that what it is?

[A]

Totally. I just thought it was interesting because you typically call someone a friend of the brand when they are really quite involved. They often like, purchase or engage with you in some way. Like, this is kind of an interesting. Like this is new language that hasn't been used before.

[B]

Because what I'm hearing, and I think we were hearing, is that the big celebrities are becoming too expensive in some ways. I'm not sure we're going to talk about it in the last segment, but it's better to kind of find rising stars and bring them in, you know, under. Maybe they should call them an ambassador, but they want to try them out.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

So you call the friend. It makes sense to me in a way from a business perspective. But. But using the term friend annoys me because I like. I like the concept of a friend being a real friend rather than a fair weather friend. And it reminds me of the shapes Shakespeare quote that talks about friends like that. Sir, who serves and seeks for gain and follows, but for form will pack when it begins to rain and leave thee in a storm. It seems like they're. They're not really friendships, they're just convenient arrangements. Yeah, right. And so it. Does it really add on to the brand when it seems kind of frivolous? Or is it an investment in seeing this person move up the ladder to become an ambassador?

[A]

Wow, look at you, Shakespeare. I can't handle it. It's too poetic.

[B]

Let's move on.

[A]

And I just. My question is, like, where does this go? Right? Like the. Where does this go if they're constantly looking for fresh language? Like, if you go from being a spokesperson to the face of the brand, the word ambassador was somewhat of a new term then to move to friend. Like, where does it go from there? Like a customer of the brand?

[B]

Like, no, at some point we're going to actually name the customer of the brands. It's going to be renamed slave of the brand.

[A]

Like, where does it go if we did. But like, anyways, I thought it was

[B]

an interesting acquaintance of the brand. Brand.

[A]

But it also.

[B]

No, no friend with benefits of the brand.

[A]

No, but it, it. I would just love to have known. I think that what's interesting is does that change the contract obligation? So if you're a brand that Might not be able to afford an ambassadorship. Does the language of friend of the brand allow you, especially if your brand with less money? I think it's. It's interesting there.

[B]

Look, what I would say is all of this BS language. Like, as consumers, you have to understand if it's a real endorsement or not. Yeah, right. So, like, resonate with people who actually support, but the friends, it's just another corporate way to try and get more money.

[A]

Okay, I got two more things to talk about. The first thing I want to talk about is John Summitt. He broke the Internet this week with destroying his Ramoa Samantha. So in case you missed it, John Summitt is a very famous DJ in Las Vegas and. Or he's got a residency right now in Las Vegas rather. And he has had this suitcase called Samantha that that he continued to destroy over the course of the last few years. It took a turn this past week when clips resurfaced of Samantha being, like, basically thrown down an escalator. And then he did this, like, literal parking lot fire with his Ramoa luggage. And what's interesting is I want to break down if it's good branding or if it's bad branding, because on one hand, he literally is showing different. Different scenes of like. Of being.

[B]

Sorry, whose brand are we talking about? Ramoa or his? So did Ramo pay him to do it?

[A]

No.

[B]

So then what do you mean? Is it good branding or bad, Brandon?

[A]

Because in the last. The last scene of the reason why he's like. He's creating this actual, like, trash fire in his Ramoa in the parking lot is because he says it's his sixth Ramoa of the year that's broke. And he's like, basically alluding to, like, being pissed off that, like, the Ramoa is. But then on the other hand, he's.

[B]

So he actually. So Remora didn't just catch on fire as a defect. He set it on fire because he's upset.

[A]

He set it on fire because he was mad.

[B]

I thought maybe the charging thing inside of it might have shorted it, but

[A]

he's explaining that he's mad and he's done and he's pissed off because the sixth one broke this year, but they

[B]

replaced six of them. So their warranty is obviously very good. Like, they honor their warranty even though this guy is a disaster.

[A]

Well, they have a lifetime warranty. That's my question is he did not say that they replaced it through a warranty. He said that he was annoyed that he had to replace six of them. He's like destroying it in ways that are, like, not usable. So the end piece to this that makes the story go full circle is that as his luggage is delivered at the luggage carousel, it's in a container because it's broken, and it's like in a clear bag because all of his clothes popped out. So it's the kind of. He's so pissed off, he drags it out and then he ends up having this. This, like, burning party for his Ramoa because he's done with it. Do you. And then the whole Internet blew up, and all of these different luggage brands were trying to tap into it and they were all commenting on it. What do you think, good marketing or bad marketing for Ramona?

[B]

Well, I think Ramona should. Should take this and capture it. Right. So he's like kind of the guy who knows how to play blackjack too well, and you have to get him off the table. So he's a guy who knows how to, like, use the brand of Ramoa and then he's amplifying it to get replacements non stop. Right. And then using it to amplify his brand as he's traveling. Right. So I would do to him what Rode did to that other lady. Like, you're not allowed to buy our product anymore.

[A]

Oh, yeah, right, yeah, yeah.

[B]

Like, I would lama hooja him. Don't allow him to buy the product anymore because he's using Ramo to amplify himself. And so you need to say, look, you don't embody the spirit of what we, as sophisticated travelers are. This is not a reality TV show where you're throwing your thing off a building to see if it stays together. I would take the initiative.

[A]

Forgive you for being mean to our Hollywood friends.

[B]

I wasn't talking about our Hollywood friends. But anyhow, keep going.

[A]

Well, I don't know who else you were talking about because you were not having an abundance of small talk conversations.

[B]

I don't like small talk. But Ramoa pick up on that. Hire us to do that. Creative.

[A]

I have nothing to add. That was a killer point. Okay, so let's talk about. We had a really interesting conversation with a friend of ours about Vegas, and I wanted to break this down. It's actually fascinating of what's happening right now in Las Vegas. So. So I'm sure you guys have heard the headlines. Las Vegas is down, down so much that it's taking the Canadian peso at on par with US dollar, which is simply based on. Why does that make people mad?

[B]

It doesn't make me mad.

[A]

It's 40 cents on the dollar.

[B]

It's not 40, it's 60. Like, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

[A]

No, it's like 35 cents.

[B]

It's not. Don't. Please don't judge her by this.

[A]

Should I search? $1 36 Canadian dollars makes one US dollar. Okay, so 40 cents on the dollar.

[B]

Okay. You just, in front of millions of people, embarrassed yourself in terms of your ability to do math. That's why she's a branding expert, because she has no idea how to use fractions, decimals, or percentages. It's about 63 to 66 cents on the dollar. Anyhow, let's move on before you embarrass yourself for the. There. Yeah, that's why she's a branding expert. Anyhow, comment below on the math. Don't. Let's not. Let's just go past. Let's just go past. Let's go past.

[A]

Oh, so they have the dollar.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Okay.

[A]

Cents on the dollar. All right.

[B]

You'll never get this time back. No, no, this is going on. This is going on. This is definitely going on.

[A]

All right, guys. The 136 to 1American dollar.

[B]

Okay, let's just get to the point.

[A]

I. I feel like it's worth saying. So they're.

[B]

Let's get to the point.

[A]

Vegas is taking it on par.

[B]

Yeah. Because they're down. The question is why?

[A]

The question is why? Because the middle class is hurting, and the. And they can't afford the $25 drinks.

[B]

Well, I think what's happening is I. I think people aren't realizing that prices have doubled for certain items, like, within three to four years, like, literally doubled. That's crazy. Inflation, like cocktail drinks are to corporations are. They're taking advantage of the ability to raise prices, and they're boxing out the middle class. There is an upper class that has a money, and we'll spend that money, but they're not getting the volume that they used to get. Like, Vegas used to be able to go to the strip and get $2 drinks, pay, you know, penny blackjack and have a great time doing some stuff. It's now become this place that was, you know, everywhere you go, you cross the street, you spend 100 bucks, and most people can't afford it, and it's not worth it.

[A]

So that's the problem. So Vegas right now is down. But what's interesting is that luxury in Vegas is not down, down. The issue with luxury in Vegas is that luxury in Vegas is only worth it. If when you go into one of those nightclubs and it's filled with the other 3,000 people that can't afford the luxury tables, and that's the issue is that the clubs in Las Vegas are dying because they're overspending on talent. The talent is gouging them.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That it's so expensive that there isn't an ability to be profitable. So let's say, for example, example, someone, I throw this out there. This is not real numbers. The chain smokers is charging $1.5 million a night to perform at Omnia nightclub. The ability for them to make back the money for the cost of the talent for the event is not possible, even though they're selling out. And that's the issue is that some of the clubs that used to be super hot clubs aren't paying for talent anymore because they're not, they're not getting any more people. People.

[B]

I think it just dawned on me, that's why I wrote down. So I don't want to forget about it. The nightclub experience was a thing when people went there to interact with humans. Right. And what most people are saying is nightclub experience. Nightclubs are down. Right. It's not the same thing. I actually think the phone is the cause of it for two reasons. One, when you go to a club and people on their phones, you don't have the same vibe. You're not kind of in that, that kind of tribal sense of you're navigating a crowd of humans and trying to find humans because everybody's just going on their phone. So it doesn't, it doesn't give that sense of what a concert used to feel like. So people are using nightclubs just as social media opportunities. If there's a hardcore dj, they will go to that event to get a picture that they're at the event with that dj, but they're not going to spend the money there.

[A]

Well, that's what's so interesting is that these younger people, the ones that tend to fuel Vegas, Vegas, they're staying in Airbnbs, they're buying alcohol at the alcohol store, they're coming preloaded and then they show up at the event. They might buy one drink, but the spend threshold for the bodies that are in the building is like so much lower than where it used to be. And what's interesting about that is there's this trend with these like higher end hotels. They're actually letting go of their club promoters and they're focusing on service because by just focusing on the talent cost alone or the glitz and glam, they're not making those dollars back. So they're doubling down on brand experience because they're hoping that that's where they're going to be able to win that customer long term.

[B]

This is interesting to think about how the customer will always fight back against the system that's gaming them. And what the customer is doing now is you're pricing this too high, it's too expensive. Everybody is making too much money on the top. So we're just going to pre drink, we're going to go there, we're going to use your venue to put our social media and then we don't actually care about the experience. And they'll go back and party in their room because you know, it's weird how the phone is changing how we socialize in the evening.

[A]

Well I also think too like people are just drinking significantly less. You know with like GLP went on the rise. You have peptides, you have people wanting to save money. And then I also, I also don't blame them. Like when you're, when a drink is $25 and the average person has a like a salary of. Even if it's a rank.

[B]

No. How do you go to. You can't go to a club and get drunk because you're going to drop 400 bucks on boost like and it's, it's essentially half of a bottle you could buy for $30 in terms of actual alcohol.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

It makes, it doesn't make sense.

[A]

It just is interesting from like a trend forecasting too. But it also shows you that experience has such a disproportionate upside because the people who are like there's still some clubs that are wanting to win on the relevance game like on the social game and to see it as a wash because like Apple too like Apple tv. It's like a billion dollar loss on their, like their, their production if they're not making money on it but they're maintaining it so that people, they still have that brand relevance.

[B]

It's fascinating what I would suggest to nightclubs and this is interesting because back in the day when I would go to clubs they had a smoking area outside. Right. And it was actually sometimes I go with my friend, I never spoke but like some of the best conversations had in the smoking area. But nightclubs should have a, a cell phone area. So like if you're seen with a cell phone in a club you get kicked out. But you can go to a section to check your messages if you have to. Interesting Right. And that way you might be able to kind of re bring back the vibe that's needed in the clubs.

[A]

Love that for you. Do you want to end this on your coffee shop pride flag?

[B]

It's called Phil's Coffee, so it's Phil with a Z. And they start in San Francisco. They got stores in LA and I think nine in Chicago. Well loved coffee shop. And they made a decision a couple months ago, the CEO, to take away the pride flag and all of the flags that were up in their stores because they wanted to be more inclusive so not just be. And so they took it down. But the backlash was so hard. I think it was only a month ago that in April of this year the CEO reversed his decision and apologized and said I should never have taken it down and is now putting the pride flags back up. And I just thought it was an interesting angle on brand. Do you think that's a good decision for their brand to reverse to reverse on that?

[A]

I think when you make a decision, you gotta be firm on your decision because to flip flop then you show, then you show to have no brand. So you're not like you're now not pleasing anyone and that the people that you pissed off are probably not likely to want to come back back and support you because your ability to make a decision was so weak. But I also think that it's it. I don't know enough about their customer base of that might have been a large majority of their customer bases. I also feel like it's becoming overdone in spaces that where you're just doing it to check a box. And when it's not, you're not like truly invested in like in. Into a community center. Like Craig's Cookies. To me when I go in, I love that it's like a pride focused space. It gets authentic to the founder. It makes sense. It's throughout their brand. Like he's a gay man, he like it. To me, I like that made sense. But when we were in Palm Springs recently and we were on the main street, it's like every single business had to do it because every other business had to do it. And then it just became like every business was doing it because the other business is doing it. And then that to me was like it seemed more performative than, than genuine.

[B]

Yeah. I think from a brand perspective I'd be interested in knowing. Knowing like what was the thought process behind making the decision? Clearly that's a big decision and you'd be the first coffee shop in, in America to make the decision that we're going to take down all of the flags because there's flag fatigue and there's going to be one level of discussion is like, that's a safe space. And there's going to be the whole, this, whatever. But when we're talking about the business of brand, if you looked at it and said there's no other coffee shop doing this, and we actually want to just make our coffee shop about coffee again. Right. Because it is a safe space to come into our coffee shop regardless of the flag. The flag isn't a magic robe that deflects bullets. So I think most people would believe the coffee shops are a safe place for that community to go to wherever you are. So by taking it down, they were making a brand decision going forward, but then they responded to the trolls and the people who attacked them. And what I just want to get across to people is the people in the special interest groups have their own financial incentive to never allow you to go against them. So when the head of all the groups came to the CEO and said, you're putting people at risk, you're doing this, it's not because it's actually true in some cases, it's because their whole life is funded by having this issue never being fixed.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

And what I would say as a CEO is like, our coffee shops are safe for everybody without a flag, and we just want to focus on coffee. But by. But by falling back and apologizing, you've lost trust of the people who. That was really important to.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, so I think. I think it's a. It was a brand mistake.

[A]

If you.

[B]

If you commit burn the ships, be the first to do it. And in six to eight months, I bet you would have seen a bunch of other coffee shops take down the flags. And I don't think anybody would have been in danger. But he didn't have the moral courage to go through with his brand move. And I think that'll cost him in the long run.

[A]

Yeah, I think you've said it perfectly. That's exactly how I felt one day you're in Palm Springs is that you can tell there's like a pressure to conform, but there isn't really. Like, when there's that much in one space, you're not having someone say something mean to you at the desk. Like, you're not in a space of, like, having a threat of not being welcome. Like, that's an area that is, like, very dialed into those issues. So it. I totally agree. I think you're dead on. And I think that we need to have more of these kinds of conversations because, well, when I were talking about this offline, we were saying how the cancel culture of COVID has horrified brand founders into the potentiality of just being in a clusterfuck of messiness and how much really that has changed outside of these, like, special interest groups whose entire livelihood is focused on ensuring there continues to be a problem, because when are they going to be okay with society being okay with it? Like, their entire livelihood is based off of there being a problem.

[B]

If they say it's fixed, they lose their jobs. But that's a really interesting psychological point. Covid really amplified this. You'll be canceled. And I think it lingers in the psychology of some business owners, and it's making them scared to try things because of this fear of criticism. And I think if you're a founder, you know, if you're. If you're in a corporation that's. That has that culture, you can be canceled. Right. But if you're a founder, you can build a brand by being courageous and saying things that your client base wants to hear, not what the Twitter trolls want to hear.

[A]

Well, I also think there's something else interesting, though, for you to. For up. For founders to consider. We did actually have a client that was in Minnesota that recently ended up on the list of being blacklisted because of. Of they didn't publicly go up against ice.

[B]

Yeah. They didn't publicly sign the petition and

[A]

post and put on their door that they were against it. So they were shown up on this blacklist of businesses that you should avoid because they didn't say anything against it, but just because they said nothing at all, they should be blacklisted. And this sucked because, like, this client is. She's a mom. She's she clients.

[B]

She's the best, you know, clinician in her industry.

[A]

She's got amazing. Yeah. And she's a professional clinician that doesn't really want to get involved in politics. She's a really good injector, and that's where she wants to, like, live her life. And so she did a piece of content just saying exactly that. And she did have some people that

[B]

we actually encouraged her to do that.

[A]

Yeah, the posted really well. But. But in the end, like, the real reason as to why she did it isn't be. Isn't that there was some people that got angry. They were like, how dare you not not speak, you know, in support of our cause and blah, blah, blah. But the core premise of it that's worth considering is for some people, they're not interested in getting involved. And honestly, like, I respect that. Like I respect wanting to be a professional and just like doing your thing and staying in your lane. But when we're, when we're in a society that wants to blacklist you for not saying anything at all, coming out and speaking out against just, you know, in support of not saying anything at all because you're a professional also does allow you to better align with customers that are more your type of customer customer. And there's something in value to that.

[B]

Regardless of your politics, you have to be aware that if, if your society is moving towards the fact that if you don't say what they tell you you should say, you get blacklisted. That is a move towards totalitarianism. Regardless of what the issue is like, you have to like you, you should not troll or blacklist people for not saying what you're telling them they have to say.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

And that's where we're moving. And when you're a business owner, I think there is a large amount of, of people who want to see the politics out of business.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

Because half of it doesn't, it doesn't mean anything if you're forced to say it.

[A]

No, I agree.

[B]

So if you're forced to say it, your people don't even believe it. They're just doing what they're being told to do by the thought police. And so I think the lesson learned is I think the COVID hangover is still there. But I think you can be a first mover in your industry to start saying what you should say, which is our product is the best, you know, and stop being a slave to what the thought police are telling you to think.

[A]

And I want this to linger with you in whatever way feels right. Because to really win in the current landscape is to have a perspective or point of view. And it doesn't have to be political, it can actually be anti political, but to meaning that you can just be really good at what you want to do and not get into the lines of politics. And that is also a very admirable and respectable thing. And it's easy for where you sit if you're not involved in it. But when you, when we're hearing people that are in these like epicenters of things that are happening and to be forced to say something, it, it's relevant to stand out and to have a pov because that's where I can't replace you.

[B]

You know, thinking about the Philz Coffee. I think if the CEO would have said I want everybody know, the reason why I did it is our coffee houses are safe for everybody, everybody, because our culture welcomes everybody and we don't need to put up a flag to show it. Right. And I think actually a lot of people from the community are secretly fatigued by all of the fake signaling as well. And you would have seen them go there. But the people of the biggest megaphone are the leaders of these special interest groups who get treated preferentially by media. And so you see these stories, but they're paying attention to the noise, not necessarily the signal. And I think it speaks to what you just said.

[A]

Yeah. Well, I hope everyone has a fantastic week this week.

[B]

Let us know what you think of our set here.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And hopefully we're back up next week. We're going to Mexico City.

[A]

Speak soon, everybody. Goodbye.