From Just Do It to Why Do It: The Fall of Nike

Summary

---

The Art of the Brand

Episode: From Just Do It to Why Do It: The Fall of Nike
Hosts: Camille Moore & Phillip Millar
Date: September 16, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines the recent shift in Nike's iconic branding—from “Just Do It” to the newly launched “Why Do It?” campaign. Camille Moore and Phillip Millar delve into the implications of this change, debate its strengths and flaws, and extend the discussion into the broader landscape of branding in 2025. Key themes include corporate brand dilution, the importance of brand differentiation, reactive vs. proactive brand moves, the failure of major retailers to stay relevant, and disruptive strategies for founders and smaller businesses. The conversation also explores shifts in department store retailing, the evolution of marketing roles, AI’s impact on the industry, and the intersection of beauty, celebrity culture, and branding.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Nike’s Slogan Shift: “Just Do It” vs. “Why Do It?”

[02:01 – 09:34]

• Campaign Analysis:
  • Nike’s new “Why Do It?” campaign, aimed at the “anxious generation,” is critiqued for being a repurposed and diluted version of the original “Just Do It,” lacking the former’s aspirational clarity.
  • Camille notes that the new campaign concludes with “Just Do It” anyway, highlighting its indecisiveness:

    “They spend a ton of money to repurpose what they already had. I don’t think that’s Nike’s issue. I think what Nike's issue is... the brand is diluted, has no personality and... walked away from doing hard things.” — Camille [02:41]

  • Philip is unforgiving about the change:

    “Why do it is garbage. It’s reactive and defensive. Nike right now is past defensive. What ‘Just Do It’ represented was a significant shift... It represented strength.” — Phillip [03:11]

  • The hosts agree Nike is now a follower, not a trendsetter:

    “The issue... is because they're being reactive. They are not setting the trend... they're a behemoth company that's trying to respond to trends. They're not setting the trends anymore.” — Camille [05:22]

• Generational Tone:
  • Philip argues “Why Do It?” panders to the anxieties of the current generation rather than calling them to action.
  • Camille contends that, if done properly, reframing struggle is valuable, but Nike's execution is too late and lacks relevance.

2. Corporate Brand Dilution & Brand Identity Crisis

[12:09 – 16:17]

• Major Retail Brands (Target, H&M, Abercrombie, etc.):
  • Target, once seen as a mass market destination with “an edge,” is now “bland,” lost in the “mushy middle.”
  • The difficulty of staying relevant and differentiated when brands grow it into behemoths with risk-averse cultures.

    “None of these companies are saying anything. They're not doing anything interesting. Like, their brands don't really mean anything anymore.” — Camille [12:35]

• Leadership Disconnect:
  • CMOs and corporate executives orchestrate brand campaigns for “presentation,” not conviction, because they're always ready to move onto another company.
  • Key takeaway for entrepreneurs:

    “Your brand is incredibly personal to you and your team... you really need to be able to lean into your brand and move away from what the giant corporations are doing.” — Philip [15:03]

3. Lessons for Business Owners: Don’t Copy the Corporates

[16:17 – 18:19]

• Brands like Nike, Target, or Rolex no longer provide good models for up-and-coming brands—except perhaps in their origin stories.
• Large, mature brands are “just a corporate world that’s not relevant” to most growing businesses.
• Instead, guerrilla marketing, risk-taking, and rapid innovation are keys for smaller brands.

4. Retail Experience & Discoverability

[20:27 – 27:20]

• Department Store Crisis:
  • A call for stores to invest in experience, not just inventory.

    “Department stores need to create a feel that’s aspirational... so I could discover and feel things... their inventory can be in the back.” — Philip [21:16]

  • Success stories (IKEA, Nordstrom, JCPenney) focus on curation, discoverability, and engagement with digitally-native brands.
• Failure to Innovate:
  • Most department stores fail because they don’t have innovative buyers or adapt quickly to trends.

5. Labor, Brand Culture & Customer Experience

[27:20 – 30:36]

• Staff as Brand:
  • Retailers like Home Depot succeed by hiring knowledgeable, well-paid front-line staff that embody the brand, in contrast to big box stores or Canadian Tire.

    “People need to consider paying double for their front facing staff... create the experience.” — Philip [27:20]

• Canadian Tire Case:
  • A cautionary tale: brand misalignment between supposed values and actual customer experience leads to slow decline.

6. Marketing: Specialization, Talent & The AI Inflection

[32:21 – 39:36]

• Specialists over Generalists:
  • Companies are moving towards specialized, high-skill hires (e.g., storytelling, platform-specific creators) and away from “multi-hat generalists.”

    “People are moving to quality over quantity and figuring out what are the specific skills needed to growth hack...” — Camille [33:58]

• Skepticism about Corporate Copywriting and Storytelling:
  • Many marketing roles—especially in large companies—produce mediocre output, easily replaced by AI.
  • The future favors copywriters/creators with true “innate creative ability”:

    “If you want good copy, … hire an author in an area... Not from the marketing world because they’ve proven they can’t do it.” — Philip [37:25]

7. Content Quality vs. Quantity: The Vogue Example

[39:36 – 44:19]

• Vogue’s Evolution:
  • New leadership shifts the magazine to focus on fewer, more substantial issues—a “collectible art” approach.
  • Philip is skeptical people will engage with slow, investigative media unless the storytelling is genuinely meaningful.
  • The challenge: Will Vogue and similar brands say “what’s real, not what the industry wants you to say” despite corporate pressures?

    “Vogue needs people in countries where fashion is emerging—like real humans, not just regurgitating digital stuff, so that it attracts people who are really interested in trends.” — Philip [44:19]

8. Beauty, Celebrity Culture, and Social Proof

[44:42 – 50:08]

• Medical Aesthetics and “Instagram Face 2.0”:
  • The normalization of surgical enhancement (inspired by Kris Jenner, Anne Hathaway, Lindsay Lohan) leads to a society where perpetual “age 35” is attainable.
  • As technology levels the playing field, true beauty and status become more elusive:

    “If everybody has it, what is beauty? … Right now, everybody’s just average, even though they look at what that might have been beautiful five years ago.” — Philip [47:52]

• Brand Partnerships & Risks:
  • Collaborating with altered celebrities can be a double-edged sword: association with transformation may not always align with desired brand values.
• “Mask” Analogy on Plastic Surgery:

  “Essentially we’re getting to the point where you can just buy a mask... it’s not you. And so is that beauty when you can just buy a mask to put on so you look younger?” — Philip [49:28]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Nike’s shift:
  “Why do it sounds interesting, but after you have just do it you don’t go back to why do it. What they needed to do is... not virtue signaling but just saying our tribe, our chosen tribe of selected people get it done. They just do it because that’s aspirational.” — Philip [04:36]

• On Target’s loss of edge:
  “All I see is like this bland circle and I wonder what is that store?” — Philip [13:50]

• On the risk of copying big brands:
  “Take your cues from these companies, you’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” — Camille [15:03]

• On the purpose of guerrilla tactics for founders:
  “If you’re looking at your marketing budget, you don’t copy a giant corporation... you have to think of guerrilla ways to win the battle to capture market share.” — Philip [17:11]

• On the value of experience in retail:
  “Department stores need to create a feel that’s aspirational, … I could discover and feel things and their inventory can be in the back.” — Philip [21:16]

• On the transition in marketing roles:
  “The average business owner that’s trying to hire someone to do their marketing… wants to save money. They want to hire someone that can do email marketing, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube post on Reddit … and that’s why all of these businesses have shitty marketing.” — Camille [33:58]

• On the future of storytelling in content:
  “Microsoft should create their own production studio. And hire script writers and professional filmmakers... Not from the marketing world because they’ve proven they can’t do it.” — Philip [37:25]

---

Timestamps by Segment

• 00:02 — Nike’s shift to “Why Do It?” and campaign analysis
• 02:01 — Camille explains the campaign origins
• 03:11 — Philip on Nike’s defensiveness and weakness
• 04:36 — “Tribe” and aspirational branding discussion
• 05:36 — On Cloud marketing & generational narratives
• 09:34 — The fate of behemoth brands and options for redemption
• 12:09 — Target and the “mushy middle” in retail
• 15:03 — Why not to copy corporate giants
• 16:17 — Bureaucracy, stifled innovation, DEI impact
• 21:16 — Reinventing retail experience
• 27:20 — Payroll, staffing, and Home Depot vs. Canadian Tire
• 32:21 — Specialized marketing, storytelling, and AI talent
• 39:36 — Vogue, content quality, and editorial direction
• 44:42 — Beauty, aesthetics, and implications for brand partnerships
• 49:28 — The “mask” analogy and final thoughts on authenticity in appearance

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a masterclass in the pitfalls of legacy corporate branding, the dangers of reactive rather than proactive strategies, and the imperative for bold, authentic differentiation in today’s market. Nike’s predicament is used as both case study and cautionary tale. Camille and Philip’s real-world anecdotes and riffs on retail, talent trends, and the shifting sands of influence—both online and off—are peppered with actionable advice for founders and branding professionals. The central lesson: true brand value is built on conviction, creativity, and the courage to innovate, not by treading water in the corporate status quo.

---

Transcript

[Camille]

I don't think why do it is bad.

[Philip]

It's garbage. Nike right now is past defensive. What just do it represented was a significant shift in the way that you messaged in that spot. It actually said, just do it. Our people do it. It represented strength.

[Camille]

Our athletes do it.

[Philip]

When people said Target, I got a feeling of what it was. Like it was kind of using that French accent to say it was sophisticated, that type of story.

[Camille]

Yeah. And it gave it an edge and.

[Philip]

That'S what they should. But all I see is like this bland circle and I wonder what is that store?

[Camille]

And they're not talking to anyone. They don't attract top talent. And there's nothing to be said about what makes their brand unique anymore.

[Philip]

I think people need to consider paying double for their front facing staff at the stores to create the experience. Like, I want to go to Home Depot and have somebody who can help me navigate a renovation project. I don't want to go to a big store and have somebody who's a new immigrant get paid minimum wage. You can't help me. Is will Vogue actually go back to real style and fashion commentary and risk alienating the giant houses because they have so much power now? Vogue needs people in countries where fashion is emerging like real humans, not just regurgitating digital stuff.

[Camille]

Kris Jenner had a crazy facelift this year. She looks absolutely insane. The doctor that she used is quoting at $300,000 as a starting point.

[Philip]

Beauty can come from working hard, like taking care of her skin and being fit. It also comes from good genet genetics. We want to recognize good genetics because they stand in the 10 to 20% of the human population, Right?

[Camille]

Yeah.

[Philip]

That's what greatness is. It's always that not everybody has it. But if everybody has it, what is beauty?

[Camille]

Welcome back, everybody, to another week of Art of the Brand. We've got some big stuff on our plate the next two weeks.

[Philip]

We'll leave it up to you to guess what is going on. But we might be offline for a couple weeks traveling and see if you can guess what's happening.

[Camille]

So Nike has changed their slogan from just do it to why do it? And the slogan change is meant to better resonate with who have been named more of the anxious generation. So they are trying to adapt it to, I guess, the more cultural mindset that they're trying to tap into. I don't think why do it is bad. The way that they set it up in the commercial is actually just regurgitating. Just do it. Because the commercial ends at the End with why do like. It's like why put yourself on the line? Why work extra hard? Why make yourself uncomfortable? Why forego social relationships, you know, go into scrutiny. And the whole idea of it is why do it? To be at the, at the best. And then it ends with just do it in a guy laughing. So it's not actually really that new. They spend a ton of money to repurpose what they already had. I don't think that's Nike's issue. I think what Nike's issue is that Nike doesn't stand for anything anymore. I've got several things I did research on myself that the brand is diluted, has no personality and it's trying to, it's trying to reclaim what made it great, which was hard things. When it's completely walked away from doing hard things.

[Philip]

This is a type of boardroom gymnastics that happen where they're like look, we're going to call it why do it? We're going to spend a lot of money on sponsorship. We're going to make like there's some great filming in the commercial and they come back to it. It's garbage. And I'll tell you why it's garbage is it's reactive and defensive in warfare. Nike right now is past defensive. They can't defend them and they've lost it. They're going down. They got to launch a counterattack. What Just do it represented was a significant shift in the way that you messaged in that spot. It actually said just do it. Stop whin, just do it. Our people do it. Yeah, it represented strength.

[Camille]

Our athletes do it.

[Philip]

It gives you goosebumps. It was outside of the box. Why do it is placating to an anxiety driven generation of frickin floppers who you're asking to buy what they need to. What is this thing going on here?

[Camille]

I disagree with that point.

[Philip]

No, I'm not done though. Why do it is placating to the people who are in the CMO chairs who think they understand human beings behavior and they don't. They're just in a corporate bubble moving stuff around. Why do it sounds interesting, but after you have just do it you don't go back to why do it. Right. What they needed to do is lean into what make like they need to make Nike grading. Why do it is placating to an anxiety riven generation of frickin floppers who you're asking to buy what they need to. What is this thing going on here?

[Camille]

I disagree with that point.

[Philip]

No, I'm not done though. Why do it is placating to the people who are in the CMO chairs who think they understand human behavior and they don't. They're just in a corporate bubble moving stuff around. Why do it sounds interesting, but after you have just do it you don't go back to why do it Right. What they needed to do is lean into what make like they need to make Nike great again. They need to lean into what it was, which is not virtue signaling but just saying our tribe, our chosen tribe of selected people get it done. They just do it because that's aspirational. Why do it is like placating to the people who need to need to get an explanation, who need to have all their voices heard, who don't achieve anything other than demand stuff but put them on the encloud. You guys wear comfortable slippers masquerading as running shoes. We're for the people who do it. That's how I would have amplified this. But this is just, this is a feeble attempt to try to regain the initiative and they won't have it so much to unpack.

[Camille]

From what you said, the On Cloud point is a separate point because actually On Cloud's marketing isn't good. On Cloud marketing is following the same like woke.

[Philip]

That's what I'm saying.

[Camille]

Nothing. The reason why On Cloud broke through is the original reason why Nike broke through. It was a different product. We had never seen anything like it before and it was unique. So On Cloud the. The success that we're seeing now is not the success that got at its tipping point. And Nike is the same beast, it's just, it's a different head. The why do it campaign is good and I actually think it is good for the next generation because there are no brands saying. The reality is the average brand right now is like is basically clapping for you for living in your parents basement doing nothing, not pushing yourself, not hard, not pushing yourself to be uncomfortable. This narrative at least reframes why do it? Because anything worth doing is hard. Which is at least a narrative that's missing. But and I think this is a relevant point, the issue of where Nike is today is because they're being reactive. They are not setting the trend. So the narrative in the pendulum from moving away from the woke marketing changed a year ago and this is Nike accepting that. But they were also too late with Colin Kaepernick. They're too late. They're a behemoth company that's trying to respond to trends. They're not setting the trends anymore. And there's nothing wrong with the campaign, but it's how they're moving.

[Philip]

There's something completely wrong with the campaign because why do it is not interesting. It's a question anybody gets like what? Why do it?

[Camille]

Like, okay, they're actually not fully changing their slogan. That's why they ended the video with Just do it.

[Philip]

Because, because they're, they're scared to do something really. Translated, they're trying to play both games.

[Camille]

Just do it is a definitive statement. Why do it as an open ended question? You can't change your slogan to an open ended question that isn't a tagline. So what they're doing is they launched a campaign to get buzz and based on extending Just do it. We're not really having a conversation about them changing.

[Philip]

But even the commercial, it didn't have people, it had celebrities. Like, you know what I mean? Like, it just, it doesn't speak to like, to me I agree with what.

[Camille]

You'Re a deeper, more cerebral person. But Nike, the issue is they're not speaking to anyone because they've also lost that high performance base. Right. So they're trying to go back to what, to what they once were, which I'm not saying is dynamic. Which I'm not saying is different.

[Philip]

Just do its best commercial was when they had the 80 year old man running across the Golden Gate bridge who ran 10 miles every morning. Yeah, right. And it was just, it just captured some of humanity. It wasn't celebrity worship with just putting pictures of celebrities saying why do it? And then you have these people here. There's no meaning to it. It's a veneer of depth. Like that's masquerading. Masquerading as meaning. Like you can't get behind it. Everybody knows why do it. You want to see it.

[Camille]

But going back to when the brand was in a better place and speaking about the kinds of cand campaigns that came out of the company is, is too difficult of an assessment from how far Nike has veered away from its golden years.

[Philip]

You can rebuild, but you have to do something dangerous.

[Camille]

I, well that's the larger conversation that we should be having is that Nike isn't doing anything dangerous. It's not dangerous anymore to, to go back away from the super coddled bubble wrap packaging, messaging and to move into like performance requires work. That's actually not risky at all.

[Philip]

No, it's, it's obvious and boring.

[Camille]

I agree. But I also think that Nike is obvious and boring. So what are we expecting from a brand that's lost Its Nike. What made Nike great was that it came from grit, that it had the best shoes, that it had a breakthrough product.

[Philip]

It was like wearing colors like in the past Nike, like years ago when you wore it, you were putting on something that says like I work hard. Like it had a meaning to. I'm the person who's up at 5am when nobody is watching doing reps. Now when you put on Nike, what does it represent? Like I don't even want to be associated with Nike.

[Camille]

That's the reality of the world we live in with these behemoth brands that sold themselves out during the like the 90s and 2000s. Is that the only way to really bring yourself back? Is it. It appears to be two ways. One, do something controversial like an American Eagle move so that at least people are talking about you, which most, most brands won't do because they're, they're completely paralyzed by the ide idea of a, of an actual headline that's not purchased. Or the second is to like Abercrombie yourself which is just to use your brand name as a shell to become a different version of a Sheen or a Teemu. Right. Like it's, it's basically these two options where it's like just completely ruin your brand and use the money that you're using or make a controversial statement in the media.

[Philip]

Most companies want to fight to get a monopoly of some sort. They get a bunch, a big chunk of market share. It's hard to knock them off it and then you watch them for 20 years. Waste a lot of investor money. But don't take your cues from these companies. What Nike is doing now is nothing like what you should be doing. Right. If you're, if you're a startup or a mid sized company that wants to grow, you have to be taking risks. You have to be saying something that is controversial and meaningful and differentiates yourself. What Nike is doing is just spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to look cool, splashing celebrities on their face like it's just, it's hard not to talk about it because it seems so wrong at the core principles of what we coach. Right. But I just don't know how they get away with wasting so much money.

[Camille]

Well, that's a perfect segue because a few weeks ago I did a swipe through and a sub stack on Target and basically how Target is in this position of being in the mushy middle. If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend it. Just send me a DM and I'll Send it to you directly. But basically the idea is that Target really has no, no position in market anymore. Right. Amazon has purchased Whole Foods. It's become the absolute convenience. It's, it swims both low mid and upstream. It's, it's really the everything store. And then you have Walmart that has just done its actual footprint is unbelievable. 90% of Americans live within a 10 mile radius of a Walmart. Like their, their distribution and reach is, it is unmatched. Plus Walmart has also done a lot in its buying to also level itself up. So Target's in kind of this weird place because it's like, why do you go to Target? Right? And the point of that is I had so many CEOs of these big brands that you would respect these huge retailers. And so many of them reached out feeling compelled to tell me how helpful it was to read that article because of how gaslit they feel working within these companies because it's so strict. But they're doing nothing.

[Philip]

They're like you said, CMOs, not CEOs. Right?

[Camille]

A C suite executives. They were different CEOs. CEOs too, I heard from.

[Philip]

But how are they struggling in their.

[Camille]

Own company when they're CEOs of companies that are sold within like these brands, right? So business owners that are sold within like a Target or other people that work at big, not Target competitors, but big names like that, big businesses that you've heard of. And the, the thing that's so interesting and what we're talking about with Nike is it's across the board, like none of these companies are saying anything. They're not doing anything interesting. Like their brands don't really mean anything anymore.

[Philip]

You know. You know what I thought we decided to do that Target piece because we were driving by a Target in Texas and I looked over at you and I looked at it and it just seemed bland. I said what does that mean to you when you see that? Because to me it tells me that you have to, you have to keep reinvigorating your story so people can be reminded of it, of what it is. Because you know, I think at one point it was Target where people, you know, I mean like everybody would say Target. It was like kind of fancy, but not fancy. Right. And that had a vibe to it that Target elements.

[Camille]

Well, it had a position. Yeah, right. Like it had a place like it's where brands would do collabs at an entryway price point. But it attracted all ends of the spectrum. It's like how I talked about aloe this past week. Right. Like rich people would be excited to get a deal at Target, whereas lower income and middle class people also enjoy Target because they could get better quality things that are like, it just, it hit, it hit a range.

[Philip]

I just remember when people said Target, I got a feeling of what it was like it was kind of using that French accent to say it was sophisticated, that type of store.

[Camille]

Yeah. And gave it, it gave it a, it gave it an edge and that's.

[Philip]

What they should down. But all I see is like this bland circle and I wonder what is that store?

[Camille]

Well, and that's actually what like prompted the whole thing. Because my conception, like being Canadian, I'm not around Targets all the time. So like, you know, Target was always a special place for me to go into as a retailer because everyone always talked about it online. But I, I agree with you. Like the last few times that I was in Target, which albeit isn't often, I've left empty handed. Whereas a few years ago I was just getting so many things, it was like I was, it was kind of like that winner's experience, you know, or in the States like TJ Maxx where it's like you never know what you're going to find, but you always are going to find a gem. And they lost that. But what was interesting is all of these, these business owners and people who work within these companies all basically saying the exact same thing that like they, there's so much pressure on them to do better and to do more, but there's so much restrictions and limitations that they can't really say anything and they have to please everybody. And to your point on, you shouldn't be copying these people because they're all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Like they're not doing anything and they're not saying anything like H and M. What the heck does H and M represent? What does it mean anymore?

[Philip]

Because the difference for our founder and entrepreneur listeners is those corporate people that are launching these campaigns, they know they're just going to move to different corporations. They don't have the same investment in their brand. Right. They're going to move from one. So if there's a budget, they'll do a campaign, but they'll do a presentation, make everybody happy and they'll get out of there. But for the people who are struggling to build and scale businesses, your brand is incredibly personal to you and your team. Like you really need to be able to lean into your brand and move away from what the giant corporations are doing.

[Camille]

Well, that's why brand is so important. Because so many business owners look up, they look up to these big players and I hear it all the time in the cohorts and one on ones client calls. You know, Rolex just did this and I'm like, that's like the worst person for you to copy because there's just, there's no way for us to measure if it was even successful. You know, like it's. And there's nothing to learn from a company that's been around for a hundred years that, that just literally spends money to maintain awareness.

[Philip]

Like it's not unless you look at their origin story. Like that's where you can learn because most of them have guerrilla approaches. But what they're doing today is just, just a corporate world that's not relevant too.

[Camille]

But there's also another angle to look at it too. So the first is obviously just don't even think about copying them. It's just such a waste of time and money. But the second aspect of it is kind of, it's like they're like sleeping on the reality of why they're losing their business. And we had this conversation yesterday in relation to Canadian Tire, a kind of a homeware store in Canada that doesn't sell tires. Really the sale is almost everything, but. But it's kind of the same thing as like the sacks and the targets and the H&M's. It's that the Internet of things sped up to improve what they were better at and then they haven't innovated. And because they're so bureaucratic and massive, they can't take any risk, they can't make a decision. And then DEI entered the fold and complicated and already broken system and they're not talking to anyone. They don't attract top talent and there's nothing to be said about what makes their brand unique anymore.

[Philip]

To build off your point, when you're looking at your business, there's a phrase in the military like you don't want to get into a European land war with Russia because they just had so many tanks. But a guerrilla warfare, if you look at Vietnam, guerrilla warfare is what the less powerful group does to win. So if you're, if you're looking at your marketing budget, you don't copy a giant corporation that's got a monopoly on a certain amount of market share. You don't do the same Google Ad spend, you don't go to the same agency. You have to think of guerrilla ways to win the battle to capture market share that generally now in today's world comes from creative content, from engaging with communities for doing things that they're incapable of doing. Right. Because of the restrictions you have to take advantage of that decision making lag and lack of courage to push boundaries and in order to promote yourself into the space and get the eyeballs. And not enough people are doing it. They're subscribing to these garbage marketing newsletters that just serve pablum after problem and self congratulatory articles. I think people need to study guerrilla warfare and apply it to their business.

[Camille]

Well and they also need to understand that like the, the ability to do more with less is actually a strength. Right. Like when I'm having these conversations. That's why I like working with small business owners. Because when I work with the big companies there's so much handcuffing to problems that aren't real problems. Right. Oh, we have to spend $35,000 a year on PR. That literally doesn't do anything for us because we signed a four year contract and you know, we've got a relationship with this woman and she, you know, and vogue buys from. And there's, there's just all of these like we have to keep doing the things that we're doing and they're just, they're losing so much money and you can't, you can't track how much they're losing. Like even when I was doing the research on Nike, Nike is, is down over 10% sales already from this year to last year. And they've been, they've been losing sales for years. And a huge issue for the brand is that they were never a direct to consumer brand. They were always a brand that you like discovered in like department stores or an activewear stores. Like it was always a brand that was skewed premium in other stores. They almost abandoned that entire angle of their market and tried to push like direct to consumer, but did it as a huge behemoth that couldn't be nimble enough. Like they couldn't launch like Rhode and Hailey Bieber did. Right. There's no person behind it. So you can't just like kill it on direct to consumer without having that like foundation in place.

[Philip]

Because there wasn't anything that's differentiating the shoe anymore.

[Camille]

No. Or the product.

[Philip]

The tech was the same.

[Camille]

Like Nike's like what you buy when you go to Sport Check or like Dick's Sporting Goods. You know, you see the Nike thing.

[Philip]

You go over maybe just another Chinese made shoe with a label on it. Right. That you have to Associate with. And I don't associate it. I wanted to ask you, going back to Target, like, thinking out of the box, because we were talking about Costco and when we talked about F45, there was. When you amass a certain amount of power, you can give, you can give the value back to the consumer. F45 does it because they have the best instructors coming up with a protocol. Costco does it because of, with their buying power. Right. They're able to secure amazing deals on the top thing. But when I go into Costco, there's not 20 different food processors. There's one.

[Camille]

Yeah.

[Philip]

So there's an, There's a reason why I go into Costco. It's because I trust that they have gone and secured the best deal on the best product. And it's always the best one in that category. Right. So I know, like, I believe I get a deal when I see something in Costco. And they have a different way of storing inventory. But when I think of these department stores, I don't want to wander around an ugly department. When you think of those department stores, they're ugly, they're high ceilings, high, high fluorescence. The inventory is all on shelves. Like, I, I'm just thinking, you know how in Apple, you know, like, the inventory is all in the back. There's like something to show that creates a feel. I think department stores need to create a feel that's aspirational, that would make me go in there so I could discover and feel things and their inventory can be in the back. But everything is just based on shelves, you know what I mean? In that old mall. I don't want to go in those stores.

[Camille]

Well, it's actually a really interesting conversation because for a few reasons, first years ago, I was in what has become actually one of like, the landmark malls in America. It's called Aventura, and it's in Miami. Miami, yeah. And the reason why it's a landmark mall in the United States, and there's actually some, like, really core stats on it that I can't pull top of mind. But it's that they have everything from like, the high end, like luxury stores to like Lego stores. So it's like a, it's a great mall like the Galleria in Texas, where like, you really get like a crazy range of like, income brackets. And they had started rolling out those concept stores where you can go in and like, tactically see, feel and experience the stuff, but they don't keep any inventory on hand. So it's like shipped directly to You. And it didn't work. It didn't work because they substituted experience. It made you like feel uncomfortable because you came in and like there was nothing in the store and you couldn't. For when you're wanting. The issue I think with malls more generally is they haven't dramatically improved the experience for how far we've come along. But I do think the baseline of being able, like when I go to the mall is I'm usually in intention to. To actually get something. So I do want them to be able to have it, but I don't want it to be the same experience that it always has been. Like, I would love for there to be like maybe VR glasses where you can like see different ways to style it or like, you know, just like for them to invest in the experience.

[Philip]

Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not saying don't have the inventory. I'm just saying change the space. Have the inventory in the back. Right. Because most of the floor space on the stores is where the inventory is. And so you're. I'm just walking around racks of folded.

[Camille]

Things like this guy ability. When I see a shirt and it's like they have it in small and I can carry it.

[Philip]

Yeah, but it'll be in the back. Right. Like when I, when I went and bought an a MacBook Air, like I didn't need to look at a hundred of boxes stacked and look at it. Right. It creates an aesthetic. Like when you say experience, if I'm looking to buy ski goggles and I go into a store, like let me put on different lenses and go down a slope with the lenses, you're right.

[Camille]

Like definitely in those kinds of stuff stores. Yes.

[Philip]

Right. But the inventory should just be in the back and the display should be about creating an experience and a desire that might not be there.

[Camille]

The second point though, on the department store, quickly, because I thought it was also really interesting. I think the decline of the department store is. There's a few reasons. And to me, the first reason is actually the buying. The buying became. It wasn't fast enough for how quick trends hit because buyers are buying a year in advance. And the buyers that were buying for like that's really was the fall of Saks versus like JCPenney is like killing it right now. They're doing a fantastic job because they have a really great. They have great buyers. And that's like the core difference is a lot of these brands like that are doing well in the current age are people who are very focused and fixated. On the buying pattern. So Nordstrom, for example, when we went in Houston, I was blown away by the home section because of how well they've curated. And what they're doing is they're not trying to make like a brand like Umbra cool, They're bringing in like Flamingo Estate, like these cool Instagram brands, and they're making the in person Nordstrom going back to its original principles, which was discoverability. That's where you were able to really discover new brands. And what so many of these department stores have done is it's, it's. They're. They're not new brands, they're not the pieces that we would buy. And there's nothing special about the experience. So the department stores that are doing well are actually going on Instagram and TikTok reaching out with these founders that have big followings, bringing their product into Nordstrom so that people that are now have a reason to go in store because you can tactically feel it and see it.

[Philip]

All the things that are. It's kind of funny, you know how there's the Made. Made for TV store.

[Camille]

Yes, yeah, yeah.

[Philip]

That sells all the things that used to be in tv.

[Camille]

Yeah.

[Philip]

There should be a made for Instagram store. Store where you can bring in and tactically see all the things that are being sold on Instagram rather than just buying a two dimensional image.

[Camille]

Well, that's what I love about it.

[Philip]

It's a good idea right there.

[Camille]

I know. And when I went through the home section, I was like, you were literally screaming at me. It was literally.

[Philip]

I was not screaming at you.

[Camille]

Camille, your lunch is here. And I'm like, okay, I hear you, but I'm like hoping you don't repeat it again. And then. Camille, can you hear me? No, but I've told you a million.

[Philip]

Times not to exaggerate, but anyhow. But I think if we're on it, what made Ikea, why IKEA lasts is IKEA is an experience. You have to walk through discoverability. You have to walk through a certain way. You're seeing it as you see a house, room by room, and they always have new and innovative things. They said, oh, my God, that's a great idea for it. Oh, my God. So every, every 50ft, you're seeing something that's kind of new and different, but with a way to discover things for your house as opposed to walking into a giant furniture store where you just see. You know what I mean? Like, it gives me the heebie jeebies just to think about going to a Giant furniture store.

[Camille]

Well, the stores that need to be redone. Like you know how they did like ghost kitchens for Ubers? They need to do that for department stores where it's like a smaller footprint but like three floors and it's like a pop up so like these brands can go in and be like a pop ups. Because that's like honestly like there's all these brands I see on online, on social media and I don't have unlimited funds, you know, just to keep ordering the Lola blanket and the parachute robe and like the flamingo estate tomato spray. And it would be amazing if they had one like that would do really well. The issue is that these department stores, they would bankrupt companies because it was so expensive. It only introduced companies that had massive VC backing or Republic companies that could afford to lose based on shelf space. They had overinflated payrolls, they're inefficient when it comes to marketing and branding and their ability to buy is based on established contracts that are not relevant.

[Philip]

Let's just talk about overinflated payrolls because this is where we were talking about Home Depot versus a garbage big box store. I think people need to consider paying double for their front facing staff at the stores to create the experience. Experience. Like I want to go to Home Depot and have somebody who can help me navigate a renovation project. I don't want to go to a big store and have somebody who's a new immigrant get paid minimum wage who can't help me. Right. And I think that's one way they need to reframe how you look at the cost of labor.

[Camille]

But it's also culture, right? Like Home Depot has very strict SOPs. They have very clear hiring parameters. Like yes, they pay better, but they also attract a better caliber person because of their systems that are in place. And that's a, that's a huge like intangible benefit to brand. It's like you have a great brand when you see everything as part of the brand, not just the way something looks. Because you even were in your MBA and you got to speak to the CMO of Canadian Tire and they were so impressed with the way that their rewards rollout looked and like their new logo and branding and like honey, you've got the biggest like trainability crisis. Like I won't even go in there. And you made such a great point yesterday. Talk about the di DIY point.

[Philip]

Well, the store, Canadian Tire you were talking about used to be a staple in Canada. It was one of the best stores.

[Camille]

Ever because they Made monopoly money, called Canadian Tire money.

[Philip]

Well, they were a thought leader in rewards points. They actually printed Canadian Tire money became famous. You would get a little. You get like a small percentage back. You keep it in a drawer. And then I remember as a young kid looking at that Canadian Tire money and wanting to kind of scoop it and go buy a fishing lure. Like, I love the idea of Canadian Tire money. And this was 50 years ago, 60 years ago. So when I talked to the. This visiting senior person at Canadian Tire who had been in my Kellogg program, a graduate who was bragging about it, I said, you know, my peers and colleagues have a lot have discretionary money and want to go do some home improvement products. And there isn't one of us who is an incredibly dissatisfied with the customer experience. When we go in and we're looking for something like, the employees don't know where things are.

[Camille]

But that's such a miss to your shared values, which is such a big pun on the brand core that I make you do, is that if the shared values of your customer cares about do it yourself projects.

[Philip]

Yeah.

[Camille]

And they're already investing in doing all of the steps themselves. They go to the store to start buying the steps, and the people there can't answer their questions. And there's brand misalignment because you're not servicing your customer.

[Philip]

It is huge brand misalignment. And that's actually well articulated because you go in and you talk to somebody who you can tell has never done a DEI do it yourself project themselves. They're just generally somebody who's a pulse there to wear a shirt. And it's so freaking painful to see an employee try to figure out where something is like to be. So, you know, and I told this lady when she was giving the talk, I said, I've turned and walked out of that store numerous times because I was just so dissatisfied with the brand dissonance. And I just. I would drive an extra 20 minutes to go somewhere.

[Camille]

Well, it just. And those are the things you can't measure. Right. When we talk about brand death by a thousand cuts, all of those mini decisions of when your customer either thinks of you and decides to go somewhere else or ultimately stops thinking about you altogether. Doesn't happen in a perverse way, proverbial like Cracker Barrel rebrand. Right. Or a Bud Light moment. It happens, like, slowly over time. And the response that Philip got personally from the person in charge of the marketing was basically like, your opinion doesn't matter. Now they're gonna fast forward. And in Three years from now, that's gonna be a total now of six years. They're gonna see them. They're probably already seeing it. There's no way they're not. But on. But it's gonna. It's only gonna get worse because by the time that it becomes such a glaring issue, it's too expensive and it's too late. It's the Saks problem. They're major slashing jobs.

[Philip]

This person was brought in to talk about leadership. So I wanted to ask a tough question, but be respectful. So I'm like. Because she reported right to the CEO of the giant corporation. I said, could you pass this on from my demographic that we don't like your store anymore? Canadian Tire points are gone. Nobody knows what it is. And I said, why not? When I go in, allow me to either click on an app or scan a QR code and I can put in what I want to buy. And then I don't think it would be easy to map. Difficult to map the store and show me where it is or have somebody pop up and go, hi, I'm here to help you out. I'm a Canadian Tire somebody who really knows. Like I was trying to give something that would help bring me back. And she's like, oh no. Everything is amazing. At Canadian, like, in front of like 50 students, everything is amazing. The CEO is doing a great job and we have the best rewards program in the country and nobody even knew what it was. So it just shows that the corporate world is not paying attention to the customer.

[Camille]

So I wanted to talk about this video that I saw. I think we're about to see a significant shift towards highly specialized, unconventional social media roles, meaning more positions that hinge on niche expertise, more teams behind semi public figures, and less of the multi hat wearing generalist. Another prominent cat category is video, specifically vertical and short form. I've recently seen interesting roles from Microsoft, Time and Substack, all three of which directly cite storytelling as a core proponent of the job. So I thought this video was really interesting. Kind of talking about how marketing is moving away from having generalist roles that can wear all these different hats and more moving to like specialized roles focusing on storytelling.

[Philip]

You know, there's some, some principles of warfare in there in that you have limited resources, you want to focus them on. On the key points that make the most impact. So you don't want to. In maneuver warfare theory, there's this phrase called Schwerpunk, which means main effort. Identify where the main effort should be. We get the best critical responses and put your your forces there as opposed to diluting them across a broad front where you don't achieve much. So that type of space specialist knowledge in the marketing world works. It makes sense. I don't know how. It hasn't been the case for a long time. I just find that's like a regurgitation of some kind of. It seems like that's a ChatGPT. ChatGPT generated piece of content where they just list a bunch of stuff and it sounds intelligent but like, what is the takeaway? This is what's holding back business owners and entrepreneurs is that there's so much vanilla fluff out there. Like, what do you do with that if you're a founder?

[Camille]

Like, I've got. I can speak to it.

[Philip]

Yeah. Okay, go ahead.

[Camille]

There's the average business owner that's trying to hire someone to do their marketing, wants to save money. They want to hire someone that can do email marketing, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube post on Reddit. They see a video talking about this new program and they want to get them to do it. And it, to me, it's, I'm seeing all of these trends and data points more recently, including the big Vogue piece that I spoke on last week where because there is so much of everything, people are moving to quality over quantity and figuring out what are the specific skills needed to growth hack. Opposed to just hiring anyone that says that they're in marketing from a legal.

[Philip]

Perspective, like if, if there's a lawyer who's a generalist. Right. In a small town, they're affordable and they do everything. Real estate, personal injury, criminal, family. They're probably nice people who do a decent job, but they're not the people who are going to win when everything's on the line in the most case. So you can go to the top people in, in different areas and I think you can do the same in marketing. Right? But the corporations she's listing there, like, Microsoft hired somebody who wants to talk about storytelling. Well, what story is Microsoft going to tell? Like, they're not allowed to tell a story that's interesting. Like, this is the thing with movies. Like, nobody's telling interesting stories. So they're saying, oh, we're going to hire somebody who's got skills in storytelling and they're going to have a resume that says they can do storytelling, but it's not interesting stories. Like, so how do you know that you're hiring somebody who's like, I think you need to go out of marketing to hire the people with the Skill sets in many cases. Because I think the marketing world has been just kind of corrupted by non thinking, non creative people who are. Who are just signaling but not doing anything interesting. But a niche is good. Like obviously you want to have the best Facebook ads person if you, if you've established that Facebook is the medium that you want to go and secure your market share. Having a top Facebook person makes a huge difference in somebody who has just a very surface level understanding of it in a marketing agency.

[Camille]

I don't think any of this doesn't make simple sense. I think sense has been lacking from the industry for a while and coming out of COVID it was such an easy industry to kind of jump on because it requires. Requires really no designation and like simple, you know, extroverted skills for the most part to be able to kind of fake your way through it and what it. Regardless of. You're right. Big companies are useless. But when you're seeing big companies hire for more like more almost like more niche content creator roles is kind of how I would place it. Where you're kind of looking for people who have like hard skills to like write, captivate an audience. Like focusing on visualization, like hiring someone in a company specific for substack is very interesting that companies are hiring for that. Opposed to utilizing like a copywriter and just like extending their, their job description to adding in substack.

[Philip]

Because most copywriters suck, right? Like marketing is full of charlatans.

[Camille]

Like if you an upside for people who are entering into the market, into the industry. Because if you are get really good at TikTok you could be paid a very, very good salary for. For growth hacking on TikTok. It just, it shows you that there's value in actually understanding the platforms than being this. Back when, like when I got into this over 10 years ago now, it was like can you do SEO, AdWords, write a website? Can you do all the things graphics? And it was. It's why all of the. A lot of these businesses have shitty marketing.

[Philip]

Okay, I got it. So expand on that. Can you do those things? Do those things require high level intellectual ability and innate creative ability replicated by AI right? No. So that's what marketing has been populated by people who don't have any talent. That's not replaceable. Right. But if you want good copy, don't hire a copywriter necessarily. You want to know what some of the things are? Hire an author in an area like Microsoft saying I want to hire somebody. Marketing. No storytelling. Microsoft should create their own production studio. And hire script writers and professional filmmakers. Right. But don't get it from the marketing world because they've proven they can't do it.

[Camille]

Well, that's actually really interesting. That's why Katya, my social, my social media coordinator sent me the video because her and I were having a full conversation and I'm like, like 90% of the marketing jobs are done with AI because they're just not good enough. They want to check out at 4:45pm they're not focused, they're not consuming content on the Internet after hours, they're not staying up to date on new programs. They check in, they check out, they give you a 60 effort in their day and it's shitty work product. And the, the, that's why I'm excited about AI because their jobs should be replaced. Like they're not in the game, they're not active in their role. And that's why she sent me the video because I had this like whole passionate conversation with her as a student, 22, 23 year old, and she ended up sending me this video a few days later. And she's like, you're right. Like it's going to be exactly to your point. It's going to be filmmakers that are moving into TikTok. You know, it's going to be authors that are moving into storytelling and story writing because ChatGPT gives a good product, but it's, it, it's not yet, it's based on the input. Right? So it's not yet the best on a basic input level. And the majority of these marketing teams are giving shitty product.

[Philip]

Yeah, ChatGPT can write stories, but the question is there's a billion stories that could be written every microsecond somebody has to be in charge of saying, hey, I want you, I want a story on this, that, that, that makes the difference. And that's where you need somebody with elevated cranial capacity, not somebody who just engages in smoke and mirrors.

[Camille]

Totally, totally. The last thing I wanted to touch on is I got some really positive feedback last week from, from the Vogue article about kind of the discussion between basically to recap, in case you missed it, Anna Wintour has effectively stepped down and she selected her successor, Chloe Mao. And it broke the first time in 30 years where they didn't hire a visual creative, they hired a writer. And Chloe Mao's entire plan is basically to cut down from being a 12 month subscription to only going out with four to six, you know, pieces per year and competing less with Harper's Bazaar and Cosmopolitan and More with like collectible art or coffee table books is kind of the direction. So it's going to be a highly produced, like high end book that goes out a few times per year than it just being like a monthly issue. And a lot of the feedback that I, that I, that I got actually really connected to our topic on the film festival and how we feel about movies in general in that there is a delusion of a ton of crappy things and we're moving towards. It's no longer impressive to just move like super fast. If brands want to last, they need to be more focused on the quality piece instead of the quantity piece.

[Philip]

Yeah, I understand why people are excited about it. I have severe doubts of people's ability to sit down and read in today's world. I think they want it, but I don't know if they want to invest in, you know, what GQ used to do with its articles. Like, it would have like very well researched investigative articles that were like 10 pages of magazine in small font. Rolling Stone used to do that. But you would read these things and you would learn about the band like in, in Almost Famous. Right. But just bringing a writer in and doing it less frequently. Unless you're saying something interesting and investigative. I don't know if you get to, if you get people to pay attention.

[Camille]

Well, there's obviously a ton of interest and intrigue for how she does this. Right. Like, and I agree with you, I do think though, in the, in the Internet of things, we're looking for more meaning and direction behind trends in fashion. And that is missing because the reality is that the majority of people don't really want to be inspired in fashion by, you know, Kim Kardashian. Right. They want that institutionalized direction of a brand house, a brand name, you know, stating the trends.

[Philip]

But let me ask you a question, because it's all well and well and good for Vogue to do that, but the way that fashion brands have evolved into giant corporations, are they prepared to buck giant corporations? Like, to me the real question is, will Vogue actually go back to real style and fashion commentary and risk alienating the giant houses because they have so much power now compared to a bunch of. Vogue had more power when there was a lot more smaller independent ones. There were still big brands, but the way that corporations have consolidated their revenue and everything is so based on it. And that's what I, as a reader need. I need to know you're going to say what's real, not what the industry wants you to say, wrapped in a different Package.

[Camille]

Now, I don't think that Vogue is perfect. I do think, though, it's. It's relevant to articulate to you that the majority of what they speak on are not the brands that we rip apart. Like, they're not really diarizing, you know, Gucci's fall fashion show. Like, it's. It's mostly Phoebe, Filo or Kate or these brands that aren't LVMH backed. So it's it. That's what actually what makes Vogue, sadly, almost more boring because they're speaking to such a small group of people that can afford a $700 simple black dress that it. That it doesn't have that, like, mass appeal. And it's not interesting issue over issue, just regurgitate the pieces that, you know, the New York elite are wearing. It's like they almost need to get back into doing those. Like, those more. Like, if we. If it's based on a quarter, like, what is that quarter's theme? You know, is it for right now? The Vogue issue that came out today is like, capturing how, like, the American grade outdoors has been, like, a huge trend in the past year. So, like, they're already trying to kind of do it. And the brands that they're focusing on in Vogue issue are not the brands that you're talking about. So they're not that indebted to the tacky big brands. It's that the brands that are Vogue approved, the Kate's, the Phoebe Filos, et cetera, are just. They don't have that mass market appeal because they're like expensive, unbranded, you know, so that's kind of where Vogue is in this weird. It's in this weird, mushy middle because Vogue means a lot to a lot of people, but their execution doesn't.

[Philip]

Well, they should. They should lean into that and get people on the ground. You know, like, news agencies need journalists in countries. Vogue needs people in countries where fashion is emerging like real humans, not just regurgitating digital stuff, so that it attracts people who are really interested in trends. Yeah, right. And build that community. And a brand can come from that. But that's interesting.

[Camille]

Yeah. So I want to do the last topic here on my side on kind of Instagram face 2.0. So the cut came out with an article called the, like, Forever 35. And the idea is that we're in this age of medical aesthetics, and surgery has never been more advanced. So Kris Jenner had a crazy facelift this year. She looks absolutely insane. The doctor that she used is quoting at $300,000 as a starting point. And you're basically kind of seeing like all of these actors and actresses literally turn back the clock and this kind of idea that you are now kind of forever 35 for where kind of technology has advanced to. But what was the most interesting to me is that in the article, what it breaks down is like even bad surgeons are getting crazy results because of how far technology has gone. So it's. It's not specific to like the. The technique of the surgeon, but it's more like where. Where science has gone more generally. And it's interesting that what happens when it be becomes commonplace to just perpetually look 35 to 40.

[Philip]

This is standard human behavior, right? As soon as something becomes commonplace, people will seek a departure from it. And it's usually based on resources. So people who have more money will go and do something that people who don't have that money can't do. So what. So whatever it is, there's always going to be something new they're going to be doing at some point. They're going to be inserting diodes that create auras of colors as you walk around. I don't know, like, there's always going to be something that costs more that allows people to achieve status, right? So if Everybody can look 35, that doesn't become a big deal anymore. And so the people with money are going to have to. That's how the whole fashion. That's how it all works, is that there's this constant desire in humans to achieve status and people with resources will pay and create industries that allow them to look like they have higher status than others as opposed to just talking about beauty or what's. What makes people happy or what a brand is.

[Camille]

So the thing that's really interesting that we're watching it like live time right now, especially with the beauty brands I work with, with Budget, it's. It's constantly a topic of collaboration when one of these celebrities breaks out with their new facelift, you know, it's like that 15 minutes of everyone freaking out for how good they look is such a massive opportunity for a brand to have like their placement with that person. It's so fascinating to me because from a strategy standpoint, when I'm in that decision chair, it's just such an interesting brand question because when it's so obvious that it's plastic surgery, when it's communicated to be plastic surgery, when the results of what we're seeing, we've now seen Anne Hathaway, Lindsay Lohan, like We've seen so many of these stars come out with almost the exact same, like, new face. What does that mean for, like, for these. These brand activation moments? Like, at what point is it becoming passe?

[Philip]

Well, just. It just, what is beauty? Right? Like is beauty. Beauty can come from working hard, like taking care of your skills, skin, and being fit. It also comes from good genetics, although people don't want to say that, but babies stare at attractive humans. They don't stare at ugly people. Good genetics are bred into us. And so we want to recognize good genetics because they stand in the 10 to 20% of the human population. Right. That's what greatness is. It's always that not everybody has it. But if everybody has it, what is beauty? Right now, everybody's just average, even though they look at what that might have been beautiful five years ago.

[Camille]

But it's, like, even more complicated because, like, it's the beautiful people that are like, re having a beautiful moment. But what's so interesting to me is, like, when we were having. One of the brands I work with was talking about sponsoring Lindsay Lohan, you know, was like, doing a collab with Lindsay Lohan, and I'm like, was it an alcohol brand? No, no. She had this crazy facelift, and everyone's, like, freaking out about her. But I'm like, to me, what makes. It's exactly that reaction you just had. Like, what makes Lindsay Lohan's transformation so interesting, you know, with air quotes, is that you can't believe that she can look that good with what she publicly went through. So therefore, do you want your brand connected to that entire arc of what all of those pieces mean, opposed to just the outcome?

[Philip]

Yeah.

[Camille]

Like, people aren't looking at her to. For, like, this is how to live your life. You know what I mean? Like, people are like, oh, my God, we can't believe you look like this. And that difference is. Is relevant.

[Philip]

Yeah, it's such an interesting nuance, and which is interesting word, because that caused quite a bit of controversy on our first Instagram because you did it on purpose. Face thing. But controversy is good because that video went crazy. And I stand by the fact that most people don't understand nuance. But in the end, like, what. When I say, what is beauty? Like, essentially we're getting to the point where you can just buy a mask. Like, it's just a more complicated mask. And essentially you're putting a mask on your head. Right. Like, these advanced plastic surgeries are just a mask, you know, but it's one that you just don't rip off. But you're putting it on. It's not you. And so is that beauty. When you can just buy a mask to put on so you look younger.

[Camille]

Like the Phineas Chip argument. Like, at what point is it your face versus I mean, it's definitely your face, but you're making.