- But, morning for Seth in New York, and whatever time zone you are all in. And for those of us, I guess, at least in my part of the world or further east, you know, very cognizant that it is Friday afternoon. And if you're in the UK, it's the Friday afternoon right before we have a three-day weekend. So thank you very much for joining when you may have other things to be thinking about as we head to the weekend. But, you know, in exchange for your time, we promise to have a good discussion today, around, really, the focus being, sort of, how do we strengthen the business side of news-media organizations, to really prepare for the future? And of course, we have no crystal ball, we don't know what the future entails, but we can have a pretty good idea of maybe the direction of travel. And so, what we figured we'd do, sort of in the hour or so that we have together today is talk about some of, you know, sort of the themes and concepts around preparedness. In about 26 minutes as well, we'll have a guest joining us to help bring that really to life. when we think about new business models, and sort of new revenue streams within the news business. So that is the plan. If you joined us on Wednesday, you know, as we said then, Wednesday was sort of "What do we do now?" And, you know, to improve things for today. And, you know, now we're talking about how to get ourselves ready for tomorrow, I guess, is one way to kinda think about it. So with that, let's get started. Just bring up the slide deck here. And again, as you know, this series of webinars we're doing is really part of, or related to, the Oxford News Marketing Program that Seth and I run, and we're very grateful to Meta for supporting that program, and really being the driving force behind its inception and its growth. So thank you to them. So today, like I said, we're gonna get into, you know, session two, here, "Strengthening the News Business: How Can We Be Better for the Future?" And really, three things. So, challenges and opportunities that we think're gonna impact the future, sustainability, and growth potential of news businesses. And we put the word growth in there even though, you know, for some of you, you might be thinking, "Well, you know, our mission is not to grow the biggest business, and the biggest audience, or the biggest readership. We have a different mission, and different objectives." Yet, I'm very much a firm believer that if you're not growing, then you're standing still. And relative to others who are growing, you're therefore falling behind. So we do need to think about how to keep on moving, even if that may not be, you know, sort of a primary commercial goal for some of the organizations that you are working for. So it's all about that. We're then gonna have our guest, Jon Kelly, and use that as a way to think about new business models. And then, after probably about 1/2 an hour with Jon, then Seth and I will wrap up, and also talk a little bit about any sort of personal gaps that, or, sort of, gaps of knowledge, if you will, that you might wanna fill. So that is our plan. Let's dive right into to thinking about challenges and opportunities. And to get us started, I wanna ask you. So those of you who joined us on Wednesday, you know, we were doing a little bit of polling to allow Seth and I to bounce off some of your ideas. So we're gonna do that again. So we're gonna see what you think. Let me bring up the polling question. So this is gonna be... Hang on a sec, here we go. So first of all, I want you to, so you can go to menti.com and type in that eight-digit code. And then, the question that will pop up to you is, "What's the biggest challenge you think needs to be overcome to secure the future of news business?" So not a small question, let alone for a Friday afternoon, but let's see what you think. You know, just type in your biggest challenge. Could be anything, really, I suppose. But please go to menti.com and type in that number. Let's see, fear. It's kinda scary when that pops up in your face like that, the way the animation works. - Oh, and good Friday afternoon to you too, wow. - Let's see what others have to say. Big Tech, all right. Admittedly, it's not the simplest of questions to just kinda throw at you, so, the good news is that no one's names're attached to any of these responses. So they don't have to be perfect, they just have to be kinda what comes to mind. All right, so, there's quite a few different things here. Maybe while some more're coming in, Seth, let's kinda start talking about some of these. So what's leaping out at you, in terms of something that captures your interest? - Well, let's let the fear be the overwashing element to several of these. But, you know, as I was thinking about the session today, I was thinking couldn't be a more thrilling time to have this conversation, because we are, yet again, in one of those watershed moments where there's big change coming. We're seeing it in the markets, if you saw. And I know there'll be many people who're watching these videos after today, so I won't keep it too much about today's news, but you see some of the biggest tech companies now are seeing a significant impact in the change of their advertising models. And certainly we saw it in Amazon's results last night. And so, there is a moment happening right now, particularly with cookie deprecation, that is really gonna change the dialogue for news organizations again. And so, many of the fears of Big Tech, and I like how someone's put that in as a portmanteau, if you will, one word together, are justified, or have been justified in the past, but may really present some opportunities for alliances and partnerships now, in a different way. You know, we used to say, when we were selling based around context and not around targeting, that where you're seen reflects how you're seen. That was a big part of the pitch at a premium, and a news organization. And that was diluted in many ways. And now, because of some of the great data tools behind Big Tech, but now that the elements of privacy and the like're coming up, we're seeing a real opportunity again, for context. And so, while Big Tech might be a challenge, it also might be a great opportunity. But I would love to hear, many of these are riveting statements. Whoever just put up "the new news consumer", that's very much connected to this as well, right? And it goes back to our conversation on Wednesday, about thinking very much in a customer-centric way about understanding what it is that customers're looking for. What is our value proposition to them, rather than the one we want to believe in within our organizations? I was thinking after the class about the way that we market ourselves as news organizations tends to be around the words trust and credibility. And that may well be true. And it also may not be the thing that drives someone to actually subscribe. Because the person who trusts you or doesn't might already well think it, and we've all been in a marketplace where someone says, "You can trust me," and you immediately don't trust that person, right? So being told to trust is very different than earning that trust. And it made me think that we tend to market ourselves around this sense of, "Look at how important, how credible our work is," and not around how our work will make you feel. And so, there is a marketing opportunity there, right? McDonald's doesn't say, "Wait till you see how great we are at grinding up beef." They say, "I'm loving it," right? They don't tell you about the process. They don't tell you why you should feel safe eating the product, right? They tell you how you're gonna feel. And they don't even say, "You'll love it." They say, "I'm loving it." They make it personal, right? And certainly I'm not saying McDonald's is the ultimate in marketing, but think about the many, you know, probably thousands of minds within the McDonald's marketing department who've studied this. They don't talk about how great their product is, they talk about how that product's gonna make you feel, and what the value it is that it brings within your life, and within your lifestyle. So I think those, that sense of the new news consumer may also be a way for us to say, "What is the new consumer message to those news consumers?" Because they're clearly not responding to the legacy message of, "Trust us and share us." And we might wish that it works, but wishing is not a business strategy, as we all know. And that's a credit to those of us who're on this call, you're here, so you already believe that. But how do we then convince others within our organizations as well? I think change management is a huge one, and that comes back to fear. The truth is that at the top of many news organizations are people who have been there for a very long time, and they're there because they love the industry, and they care deeply about journalism. But there's also probably an element, as they is for any of us who have long careers in an industry that's struggling, to have fear. And so, I mean, I would love to hear some of the people on the call weigh in on that as well. Who put in fear, would you mind sharing that? - I mean, if I sort of just build off of that, - Thank you. - a lot of what we're was seeing from what you guys have said, here, has a people element, whether it's people inside the business, or the new news consumer. And then linked to, therefore, profitability, declining revenues, so there's a lot of, you know, if we drew arrows around all of this one big, messy picture, unsurprisingly, perhaps, but if we kinda take that new news consumer, and Monica, your point, around, say, in a social media context, we have a challenge with journalism and journalistic product or content, to sort of get across, maybe, complex messages, complex stories, in ways that are accessible to not just, perhaps, the new news consumer, but the shifting, existing news consumer as well, in terms of what their expectations are. In terms of, say, content length, media formats, and so on. So I think you're right, there's an element of, "Well, what do we do with the next generation," right? What're, I don't know, the 10-year-olds of today going to expect from a news organization, a news brand, to have them grow up being informed citizens, and to be interested in the news and what's happening in the world around them? But I think it's also people now, because our ways of consuming media, the sorts of media formats we like, all of this has changed. And it's largely, you know, driven by Big Tech, by the social platforms, for example. But I think it's not just a problem that hits your industry. And I think if we take, just sort of, if we try and break that problem down a little bit, think about the challenge of, "How do we get complex points across in a world where there's a fragmented media environment, short form seems to be preferred, people have lower attention spans?" Maybe, maybe not. But, you know, in that sort of context, well, it's not a problem that only this industry needs to solve. Other marketers in other sorts of industries also have to figure out how to communicate complex things in accessible and short ways, for example, and how to get that point across. So, you know, it's not exactly the same, but I would encourage and challenge you all to kinda look outside of this industry, and think about, "Well, okay, who else kinda has this problem of thinking about that new new consumer. You know, the very new consumer, the up-and-coming consumer, combined with fragmented attention, fragmented media channels, different formats, and so on, and what're they doing to at least try to break through with complex things?" And so, I think that often, I think we can learn quite a bit by looking to industries, or even just types of companies that may seem completely unrelated, and potentially irrelevant to your own, but actually have a connection because you're trying to solve a similar problem in a similar context. So that that's one way I would think about that. The other comment I had on this is related to sort of the internal-people element, with respect to... I mean, talent is there on the word cloud, but I think related to that would be using data well, perhaps creativity, as as a sort of a muscle, or a skill set within the organization. Profitability, you know, perhaps if labor costs are going up, and so on and so forth. And again, you know, you're not the only industry that is struggling to get the best and brightest, so to speak, or having to rethink the skill sets that're needed to really build a strong business for the future. You know, and in fact, actually, oddly enough, I was doing a session with executives from a big consumer-goods company yesterday. And one of the speakers that we brought in was a gentleman from Meta, actually, but not at all from the journalism project, a guy who is responsible for augmented reality and virtual reality, and sorta the labs where they're developing, I guess, the Metaverse, as we would think of it. And these consumer-goods marketers were sort of saying, "Look, you know, we need to be driven by data. We need more data, but you know what, we can't hire the best data scientists. We can't find them quickly enough. And then we get them, and then they go and leave, and go somewhere else." And then this guy from Meta, and he'd worked in other tech companies before that was saying, "Look, you know, we got the same problem. We're struggling to compete for talent as well, and the talent that we need to prepare for the future. Even though we might have deep pockets and whatever else, it's a real crunch that many industries are facing." So, yeah, it's a big challenge. But thinking about how you can be more distinctive as an attractive employer, quite frankly, think about employer branding and the like, you know, is a way to think about that. So, you know, it comes back to people, comes back to thinking about, well, "How can we get people to buy into our vision? What skills do they need to have? And how do we, you know, move forward towards that mission together?" And I suspect if you think about that from an internal piece, you're probably going to find a lot of similar things that you could use, or at least adapt to the outside, to the new-news-consumer-type of type of audience as well. Because at the end of the day, I think we're talking about people. And you're trying to attract people, in one way or another, to the purpose and mission of a news business. And whether they're working for you or they're partnering with you, or they're consuming what is being made and put out there, you gotta think about distinctive ways to capture their attention, and have them see value in being part of that bigger picture, I would say. - Andrew, if I could just ask you something on that as well, you know, something we talk about in the larger news-marketing program is about targeting, and understanding how to customize messaging to consumers. And this piece about the new news consumer is really, to me, a very focusing phrase, because I think it's not just about saying the new news consumer is the person who would have consumed news in the past, right? Just call them a new consumer, I think is a very insightful thing, because if we are... Normally, as marketers, we think about targeting people, and focusing our spend, focusing our efforts and our time, around people who are, in essence, pre-qualified to be news consumers. And I think, now, by saying we have a new news consumer, it also should force us to think about who are those new consumers that wouldn't have been legacy news consumers in the past? Is our new target consumer base people who subscribe to other things, as we were saying on Wednesday, right? Is the person, to your point, as I think you said, if someone's subscribing to dog food, right, from, like, an Amazon service, are they then somewhat predisposed to subscribe to other things? That might be one piece. Another might be people who're feeling disenfranchised, and are looking to better understand the world. Another might be targeting people who're facing other certain challenges, or who care deeply about issues. And, you know, the great thing of all of our data tools that we either have access to or hope to have access to, and want, through alliances, to connect to is that we can focus on all of these. I think they all relate back to that one word that we haven't discussed yet, that was on the screen, which was time. - Yeah, I - Which is really code, right? Time is code for prioritization, right? We have time to do the things that we are forced to do, that're required of us within our roles. And what I think time means, and please, if you're the person who said time, chime in. What I think time really means is, "I don't have time to be as innovative as I wanna be because there is risk. Because I have a full-time job to do that isn't related to that. Because there are people above me who are putting controls on my time, and I can't say there's enough data-informed backing to make it a concrete decision." Time is really a sign. When you say, "I don't have time to do something," what it really means is there're other things that're feeling like higher priorities. How do I then manage that change within my organization? And one of the great learnings that we got, I know there're a couple of folks here who were in the larger class as well, before. One of the great learnings, I think we had, that came out of that is how much change management and internal change management affects this. Affects our ability to really drive that change externally, because almost everyone, with the exception of the new news consumer, and maybe the privatizations of all the words that everyone put in were internal issues, right? They weren't about consumers, with the exception of saying the new news consumer, and the privatizations, which I think is a whole other area to discuss. Everything else was about our internal ability. Isn't that interesting, that we don't view it as the way to fix this issue is to re-market ourselves? Relevance, by the way, thank you, whoever put that in on the screen earlier. You know, that's one that I care deeply about, and I think it captures these issues very well. But they were mostly very internal issues, saying, "The fix to the problem is inside our own organization." And so, I would say, one of the great muscles that will save this business is getting talent that has change-management skills, or all of us learning those change-management skills. How do you navigate those waters in a legacy business that publicly says it wants to change, but really, as we've all experienced, fights it internally. - Yeah, and I mean, to pick up on that, Seth, one of the things that I think is culturally something that needs to be done or enhanced, and this comes back to the time point, is finding time, not necessarily money, actually, but time for innovation. And, you know, again, it's a matter of prioritization. And particularly when there's, as we saw, you know, and the big challenge is there, sort of fear. And, you know, one of those fears is clearly related to pressure on profits. You know, shrinking revenues, perhaps increasing costs, you know, the worst possible combination. It's very easy to say, "Well, you know what, you know, the platform's burning. We don't have time to play around with fancy new things, or shiny new toys, or run little experiments on whatever it might be that may well fail. Even if we learn something, that we've gotta really shore up the current situation." And I believe that too, and I'm very sympathetic to that. But I think, unfortunately, but fortunately in the longer run, because it will pay off, is to sort of have two strategies running in parallel. One is "Okay, we've gotta, you know, we gotta fix the issues of today, and those challenges, for example, related to the business model," and when it come to talking about business-model innovation in a moment. And then the other parallel track is, "Okay, but we've gotta be getting ready for the future, which means we need to grow, which means we're probably gonna need to do new things. We're probably gonna have to think about that new consumer, what're they going to want? And, oh gosh, if what they want, whether that's content style, or format, or whatever it could be, is something that we don't know how to do? Then, well, we gotta learn that." And, you know, that's a bit of an innovative leap. And, you know, in some companies, there's always this kind of, you know, 70/20/10-kind-of-way of thinking, sort of. Put 70% of your resource budget time and money into kind of just keeping the trains running on time, and delivering, sort of, the short-run performance results that you need. Maybe 20% on sort of the near-term future in terms of growth in sort of the current main model, and then 10% for innovation and trying new things. And, you know, that's not a bad way to think. You know, whether it's 70/20/10, or it's, you know, whatever other fractions. But saying that it's not zero, that little bit at the long tail of, "Let's just allocate some energy to doing something new, and learning from that," that's the way to... Maybe you land on, you know, the next blockbuster product, so to speak, The chances are you won't. What will happen, though, is you build a culture where it's safe to have ideas and try new things, even if they're not going to give you an immediate payoff. And, indeed, actually a payoff at all. And there's uncertainty around that. And, you know, as many of you probably have experienced, if you've been doing that in your organizations, you'd also realize that that makes a more attractive and interesting place to work. And that also, therefore, taps into the talent issue, also taps into, I think, the point around using data. Well, to attract people who're interested in using data, if you don't have those capabilities already, they're typically the sorts of people who, you know, wanna be able to play around with stuff, and don't wanna just be doing the same old reporting, and the same old analytics day in, day out. So you need, sort of, carrots to dangle in front of them to get them excited. So adopting a bit more of an innovation mindset whilst not going too far down that track, to sort of disrupt things too much when there are certainly other priority issues to address. But having that as one of the priorities is going to address some of those challenges. - You know, Andrew, I was thinking back to one of the first times you and I met. Many years ago, you asked how I would describe my career, and I said, "I'm very proud to call myself a professional irritant." And I'm not saying that there isn't risk involved in that, but sometimes when I'm sitting in meetings, and I consult a number of different companies, from the startup level to much more mature media companies, I ask people if we're currently in the meeting of future regret, that we are spending so much time on something that we are planning right now, we should forecast our level of regret of how we're gonna feel about the time we're wasting right now, when we should really think about that, because the one controllable that you have is your time. And I guarantee you, people, we all look at, when we all look at our calendars, right? And it feels very important and gratifying to look at a packed calendar that looks something like a, what was the game? A Tetris scoreboard, right? When your calendar looks like that, "I'm very busy and important." And I guarantee you, if you block off little pieces of your day a couple times a week to think about what it comes next, as strange and as philosophical as that sounds, to become the voice of, "Is this really core to our mission?" To become that voice, it is a role that you will never be hired for. No one gets hired, or very few organizations hire a chief innovation officer. It's land you have to seize within your organization, right? Is to step up and say, "I'm going to be the one who says, 'Is this really what we're supposed to be doing? Is this really?'" Because I guarantee you, in your news organization, if it's been around more than five years, you had those meetings where you could say, "Gosh, if only we had time to think about that thing, we could've done it better than the other guy. If only we had had that moment to pause and think about this innovation, we really could've done it differently." And you didn't, and that's not a criticism, it's because our days fill. And if you're not controlling your time, that is your ultimate asset. And no one else will ask that question for you. So challenge people when you're in that meeting of planned regret. - And challenge yourself to think about, - Yes. - "Are there other ways to do this, or will we regret this in the future?" And in other words, think about, you know, new revenue streams, new approaches, new products, new formats, innovative new ways. Even if they're incremental innovations, there well could be some value to come out of that, which is what you need. Not just from a business standpoint, but from a people standpoint, to get people behind something exciting, and a bit different. But with that, I can see that Jon has arrived, which is perfect timing. - Good segue. - So yeah, let's seg into thinking about new ways of delivering the news. So Seth, I'll let you introduce Jon. - Thank you very much, thank you, Jon, for joining us, - You bet, thanks for having me. - we're very excited. - And we have a group here, watching live, and of course, others will be watching the video after, and we very much appreciate it, that you're taking the time. Jon and I had the chance to work together quite a few years ago, when we were both at "The New York Times", and I instantly became his fan. And when I was thinking about people who're innovating in this business, and really willing to stir it up, and challenge the model, I can think of no one better than Jon. Jon, you missed, right before you came on, I was saying that one of the defining characteristics of my career, I say, is I'm a proud professional irritant, that I like to sort of mix things up as you and I have experienced together over time. And I think I would give you the high praise of the same, sometimes, that you're someone who is not afraid to challenge the system, and to do so both as a journalist and editor, as well as a businessperson. And so, I thought for this group, it would be great to bring you in to answer a few questions. So I'm gonna read Jon's bio, and let you have his background, and then we're gonna dive in. Because if you don't know the name, Jon Kelly, it's one that you will follow after today's conversation. Jon is a co-founder of Puck, which is a media startup that covers the intersection of Wall Street, Washington, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, and features an innovative business model in which journalists, themselves, are treated as influencers, and have equity in the company. Previously, Jon founded The Hive, which many of you may have read, or still read, the new media platform that, I believe, came out of Conde Nast, correct, Jon? - Mmhm, yep. - And he worked, also, as an executive residence at TPG, which is a private equity company. and he's held senior positions at "Vanity Fair", "The New York Times", and Bloomberg. And of course, it was at "The New York Times" that he and I met, you were one of the top editors of the Sunday "New York Times Magazine" at the time that we got to work together. There couldn't be more of a legacy business than Sunday "New York Times Magazine," right? It goes back to having been printed in giant format in black and white on newsprint. Now it's one of the rare glossy products, but still very much in print, that comes out each Sunday in "The New York Times". And then you went to work, you had been at Conde Nast before you came to the "Times", you went back, - Yep. - not long after that, with a stop at Bloomberg along the way. And you got to work with some of the greatest editors ever, including Graydon Carter, right, during your "Vanity Fair" time? How did those experiences influence what Puck is now? And let's get into a little bit of the new Puck model. - Sure, thanks for the introduction. It is a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me, guys. It requires a lot of luck, you know. I guess anything does, but this business sure does. And I started working for Graydon Carter, I'm not sure how much that name resonates with this audience, but Graydon was the larger-than-life editor of "Vanity Fair" for 25 years. And in the, like, century history of the magazine business was probably one of the five most significant editors ever to walk the earth, and, you know, turned "Vanity Fair" from a sort of sleepy, and occasionally provocative, monthly magazine into a 200-million-a-year annual business in the United States alone, with its vaunted Oscar party. And we didn't have the lexicon for this sort of stuff yet, but he created a brand. He was a brand expert before we spoke in that language. He recognized how a brand could be one part journalism, one part fashion, one part style, one part nostalgia, and that there were kind of no words to explain. It created a feeling and connection, which is, I think, what we're trying to do here. So I was very lucky, I started working for Graydon when I was 21. I was still in college, and I saw what I thought was a unteachable art in someone who could put this thing together. You know, this was the beginning of the end of the magazine era. And the early part of my career, up into the point where Seth and I got together, was... You know, it was like being in Europe in the teens, you saw a way of life that was ending. And I was just starting my career, I thought, "Oh my God, this timing's terrible." If I was coming of age in the '70s, I'd have a chance to be, you know, much more financially successful and secure than at this time of rug-pulling, 'cause a few major things were happening. In fact, they'd been happening for a long time, but we were just beginning to see that, obviously, the internet was emerging as a consumer product. Advertising, even luxury, was moving from print and classified to Google, and Facebook, and others. Consumer behaviors were shifting, and around 2008 was the moment when there was, like, this punctuated equilibrium where you could see that the transition which could've taken 10 years was gonna happen a lot more quickly. It was, you know, pretty similar to this correction we're seeing in the streaming market right now. So I realized pretty quickly, "Okay, I have two choices. I can basically play the violin on the Titanic of this business, or I can try and create the new thing. You know, 'cause I have a feeling that the thing that Graydon Carter is incredible at is gonna exist one day again. You know, it was already clear by the beginning of the early 2010s that a new world was being created. A new consumer-based world was being created on the internet and on mobile. You know, what had once been Serta Mattress was now Casper Mattress. What had once been Sunglasses Hut was now where Warby Parker. So there's a series of direct-to-consumer businesses that were being recreated, and they were gonna happen in media. And they were also gonna happen in my neck of the woods, which was, you know, what a martian may call affinity-driven media, but what we used to refer to as the magazine business. Things you love, like, you don't need to read it for a B-to-B purpose, where, you know, it'll make you necessarily smarter in making an investment decision, or knowing who the real estate broker is that pulled in the biggest hall. You love it. And so, that was gonna be recreated. And I had seen... During this period, I'd been at places like Bloomberg, and "The Times", which was going through its, I mean, when Seth and I were there, it was just like this sort of head-spinning metamorphosis, where it knew what it had to do. But it took years to muster the courage to actually do it, you know, and manage internally to sort of sort out the change. But I'll tell you, when I was at Bloomberg Media, with all its infinite resources, and the fact that it's run by a historically-brilliant businessperson, I remember thinking to myself, "They had all this money, and they just created the same thing, but on a terminal." You know, they didn't, sort of, account for the fact that habits were changing, and that the format was gonna change. Anyway, a long, long way of saying, on some level, I've been working on this idea since I was, you know, in short pants, you know, 20 years ago. And I took a stab at it with The Hive. I think the biggest thing that had changed between five years ago, when I started that business, and now, and what's helping Puck succeed is there are three, as I see it, three enormous trends happening in our part of the business. There's a new obvious business model, which is membership subscription, annual recurring revenue, monthly recurring revenue, whatever you wanna call it. The answer, I think, is a blend, with advertising, and the revenue streams on top of that. But having a recurring revenue stream is now capable. People are paying for things on the internet in a way that they didn't in the first 15 years of the consumer journey. And, by the way, what's old is new again. That was the baseline for the magazine business for a long time, was having one point, you know, "Vanity Fair" made that $200 million by having 1.2 million subscribers, right, that they could sell ads on top of. So what's old is new again. The other big thing, and it's huge, is that talent is on the move. When Seth and I worked at "The Times", even though, like, the ground shook every day, the most talented people never left the building. They were terrified to, they were terrified that their mothers, you know, would disown them, or their spouses would leave them, that they'd have no identity if they weren't at "The Times." And in reality, they gave up a ton of value. On my side, on the creative editorial side, the best people were making 50%, if not 30% of their market value there. But the credential was so important that they gave it up anyway. Now talent is smarter, and they recognize that they can remake the landscape because they have these large followings, because they have this unique credibility. And, as we look at it at Puck, 'cause they're domain experts, they're not just writers and podcasters. They're experts, I mean, as someone who spent a brief amount of time in private equity, I realized that, like, they wanted me there because of my experience as a journalist. You know, if you took a business reporter outta "The New York Times" and put them in Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, they would multiply their salary, right, overnight. So I think we view them that way. Not all report're comfortable with that, but I'm very, very comfortable with that. And with the last point, which is sorta the summation of those first two points, is that new brands are replacing old ones, and fast, because the talent is on the move, and because the model is shifting. Ergo, these new brands. So I think we're entering an era where, certainly, there there's been a hollowing out. On one side are the huge brands that've gotten bigger, and bigger, and bigger through M&A, like "The New York Times", and like the Atlantic, like CNN, despite the CNN+ news. And on the other side is this DIY consumer via Substack, or Patreon. People who're kind of, you know, coming out on their own. And the middle was just totally hollowed out by the 2008 period. Magazines lost their mojo, companies like Huffington Post, and Complex, had to all merge together to get bigger. So, our thesis at Puck is that the middle is gonna get repopulated by a lot of new affinity-driven brands. You know, you could call them digital magazines, although that would, you know, be sort of controversial for a number of boring reasons. And that they're all gonna be made in the next five years, and that there's gonna be a race to be the platform company that actually sits underneath them, and helps operate them, because they're gonna need new capacities to market and have relationships with. So that was a, that's a very long answer to a very simple question. - No, I think that's great, thank you, and it gives us some great context. I actually wanna dive into each of the three trends that you just mentioned. Particularly the membership one, 'cause it's something we were discussing on our previous session, which was the idea of both acquiring a consumer and retaining them, and the expense - Right. - of constantly looking to retain them. Puck has an interesting business model, in that you offer... It's not an inexpensive subscription, but it is a valuable one. And so, there's a monthly fee option, and then there's a discounted, but still, I believe it's $100 a year, that you can pay up front to be a subscriber. That's what I did as a subscriber. - Yep. - And so, can you talk a little bit about how you thought about the pricing, and the marketing of that pricing, to get and retain, and what your experience has been in signing up paying subscribers? - Sure, a couple things. First is, I believe very firmly that business-model innovation is actually the precursor to creative innovation. And one of the things that we saw at "The Times" was, for many people, it became like a... Even with all the extraordinary talent in that building, it became like a rubber room for people. You know, there was no motivation for the most talented people, so when you reached a certain level of "The New York Times" on the creative side, you started to step out of the joint, right? Because you were frustrated at how little money you made, you were frustrated that there was no bonus. The stock was down the tubes, and that's not the case anymore. So there was no reason to be a shareholder. So, but you were not engaged. So we knew that to get the best creative people, and keep them engaged, and build the best business, we needed to keep them motivated. So how do you motivate in the long term? Equity. And if we're ever merged, or acquired, or, you know, whatever, I'm sure that we would think of some sort of synthetic derivative that would take that piece. And in the short term, with subscriber bonuses. You know, performance bonuses, so that we treat our journalists like influencers who're out... You know, we are their business partners gathering business for them. So business-model innovation totally has led to creative innovation for us. We see it every day, motivated team, motivated short-term, motivated long-term. The marketing piece is, you know, we did a lot of comps, and comp respectives for the price point. I think, in retrospect, we feel like we're giving away a lot of value for $100, and if we continue to add people onto the team, we're giving away a lot, a lot of value. But when we started with four or five writers, that seemed appropriate. There's also an upper tier, at $250 a year, that allows inner-circle members to connect more deeply to the talent, with, like... You know, we do Zoom calls like this every couple of weeks, with like, real, marketable intelligence for a more B-to-B audience that may want to know what the decision making inside of Warner Brothers Discovery is, or about the next market correction, or something like that. So we, the biggest change that I... You know, I wanna teach journalists to be businesspeople. I think that's been the, sort of, transformation in my career. I went to private equity to make that learning myself. And I want every journalist to lead... You know, who comes into Puck, to immediately understand what's their CAC? What's the customer acquisition cost of getting a subscriber? What're we, you know, seeing in terms of just organic growth over Twitter or Google versus the amount of money we're paying the platforms like Facebook, or Instagram, or LinkedIn, to serve as leads to bring in new subscribers, and create a marketing funnel for them. And what's the lifetime value? 'Cause when you begin to think that way, you see how much value you're creating on the inside of the business. And so many journalists, like.... Lemme take a brief step back. It's a two-sided marketplace. And Puck externally looks like a company that makes articles, and podcasts, and newsletters, in a certain kind of journalism. And I think we found product market fit with people who like that. But in the old business that we used to be in, that was transient. You made money only based on the number of ads you sold against that, and the going CPM at the moment. But what we know is that if we create the backend that can have a segmented data like that allows us to track and target paying subscribers, you know, retain subscribers, future subscribers, then you're creating meaningful, long-term value in the business. And if you're priced at $100 a year, I think most media multiples would suggest that you're looking at a long-term value that's five or six that, if not more. So that allows us to compensate our journalists the way we do, 'cause we know that they're creating significant long-term value for us. - So Jon, you just talked about two things that were complete taboos in the news industry, that you've actually turned into positives, right? I remember when we were sitting in "The Times", and if you ever said, "We're going to pay journalists based on their popularity," right? For a while, there were a number of controversies at "The Times", and elsewhere, about people saying they were gonna be paid based on their number of shares, - Right. - right, for stories. But what you're saying is the more subscribers we get, everybody wins. Which is an interesting model, it's very different. And the other one was, do you remember back to Katharine Weymouth at that "The Washington Post" being pilloried in the industry for offering people to pay more to get access to hear directly from journalists? - Yeah. - It damn near sunk "The Washington Post" at one point. - Oh my God, totally. I mean, I remember the day that happened. Yeah, it was as if there had been some sort of comet that, you know, landed into earth. - Yes, and so, you've taken two things that were absolutely forbidden, and made them into your business positives. So, do you think that comes from your background in the equity side of things, that you're willing to challenge the status quo? 'Cause everyone that's on the call, and everyone that's gonna be watching these videos is representing either a legacy news property or a new, innovative news property, but we're all trying to figure out the same puzzle, right? And it's to do that, and to become a profitable business, within the standards of journalism that're generally accepted, to... Because the number-one thing, when we ask everyone, "What is the core of your business?" It's that trustworthiness, that credibility. - Of course, yeah, I mean, I appreciate you saying that. I think I realized two things. I think being around a guy like Graydon, and the kinda business he ran, I realized that you kind of don't have to follow the rules. And, in fact, if you're a kinda classic in this business, which is so rule-bound, that's an immediate overnight opportunity, you know, that you'll have a huge advantage there. It is not surprising, given the examples you cited, like, it's not surprising at all that journalism was so late to this direct-to-consumer trend. Journalists are, by nature, not risk takers. They are people who get punished when they make even the smallest mistakes, you know? So there had to be a culture of change to encourage people to do this. And I think it was, you know, it wasn't my bravery. It was the bravery of the individuals who realized... And COVID helped this. Like, there was a collective realization among certain classic journalists of, "It's gotta be better than this. You know, this is not fair." Journalism very quickly started to replicate academia, in the sense that there was this tenure concept that made people have different motivations, and created fractious internal cultures. And I'll tell you the biggest line I used when I was recruiting people for Puck, and I still use it and believe it, is, you know, I would often be asked, or be told, "This is too risky." You know, what, if this doesn't work?" And I would say, "You have it wrong. The risk is staying." Like, "The risk is doing what you're doing now. If you continue to do that, I can tell you what the end state is. You know, the end state is, Kodak goes from being the biggest company in the world to something that just makes film for third parties. It goes from Corning being the biggest manufacturer of glass in the United States to being a small regional business." You know, that's not unsentimental, that's just the nature of business. But the end state for what we're creating now, I think we don't know yet. I think that there're a couple of options, but we're just at the beginning. And I think that, you know, we recruited a number of people at a certain level who were willing to take the bet on themselves, and I've been inspired by how others in the industry are... You know, they sort of like, "Well, yeah, well, if they're doing that, I'm gonna do that too." And having more options is better for everyone. So, you know, it lifts all boats. - You know, when you talk about being more of a platform for talent than you are a publisher of talent, in a way, right, that you brought all of this great talent together, that's another big innovation, right? If you think back a few years back, and it's something that we've been covering in the larger program, this sense of journalists being their own individual brands was an absolute taboo, right? Maybe you had Andrew Ross Sorkin creating DealBook, you had journalists that were getting in trouble for sharing information on Twitter early on, right? Because they were ruining - Yeah. - the idea of breaking news on the site, right? They were pursuing their own followings, and therefore could be portable, which was a danger to the institution. And yet, what you've done - Right. - is changed that model completely and said, "We want journalists who are brands on their own. That's actually gonna be the attraction, and our job is to serve those brands." Is that correct? - Yeah, exactly, I think the.... Look, Andrew's done really well, and I've seen the Instagram photos of his new apartment, so we should all be so lucky, but he should be an owner in DealBook, is my view. And I hope that he's compensated in a way that incentivizes him to grow it. But that's exactly right. I think that we have a hybrid model and a hybrid view of this. And I truly believe this. Like, we ran after this business because journalists are the most mispriced influencers in the market. You know, their value is so much, like, astoundingly, more significant than where it's priced right now. And we are building out, we're rushing to build out, on the back end of our company, the capacity to monetize them in every single way. When we were fundraising, one of the things that I sort of came upon was that we were approaching it... You know, bear with me a second. We were approaching a sort of Uber phenomenon, where the real unlocking value for Uber is that they monetize the 90% of your car's time when it's in the garage, you know? And we were trying to do that for journalists. Journalists only had two modes of expression, which was, write an article, or go on Twitter. And one was free, and the other one created value that they had no participation in. So we said, "There's a whole world in-between those things. And we have to find a model that allows you to gain value so that you're smart." I'm getting Slacks as we're talking, from Dylan Byers, our media reporter, who has some great news to break this afternoon. If he were still at NBC News, he'd be tweeting out the news. Because there would be no incentive for him to hold onto it. But now we're able to turn this into a piece to be published in a newsletter this afternoon. The newsletter is sold to Hulu for a good amount of money, It goes to a subscriber base that's gonna love this. And we send it to leads who may then subscribe, and then we market it to future leads who may be interested in this news. And it creates a cycle where Dylan gets a cut of that, and Dylan gets a cut of the larger value that we're creating. So I'm hoping that, you know, I think long term as a... You know, this may be interesting to the audience, is to go back to the "Vanity Fair" model, "Vanity Fair" sold scarcity. I remember when I worked for Graydon, one of the things I had to do every day was clean his, you know, clean the guy's bathroom in his office, and get ready for him. And there was a framed picture, a framed quote from Slim Aarons, the party, and sort of, lifestyle photographer of the 0.0001%. And it said, "Editing is the art of elimination." And that was the model there, it was scarcity. You know, "Vanity Fair" consigned, like, four times the number of articles that they had room for, because it was the best of the best. And, you know, in the BuzzFeed web 2.0 era, there was no scarcity. There was no, "All the news that's fit to print". It was infinite. And so, I think that when we think about Puck, and we think about this new era, the brands're gonna be finite, actually. Like, I don't know what the total addressable market for Puck is, but there is one. If we go beyond it, we'll liquidate the brand, which I don't wanna do. But I think that there's probably a Puck for many other things. And that's the innovation that I'm looking for in the next three to five years. You know, and that's what buoys local news, you know, that's what buoys lifestyle content, that's what buoys, I think you'll see, you already sort of see the beginning of this in emerging areas like crypto, or cannabis, or places where there's a lot of money and not a lot of direction yet. But eventually what you'll have in, you know, five or 10 years, is a modern version of the Hudson News magazine rack. You know, and it probably, hopefully, for us, will never make it onto Apple News. You know, that it'll be in its own ecosystem, where it's upscale. And so, that's the future that we see that we're running for. - Okay, tell us, before we lose you, a little bit about how you're marketing Puck. How're you driving awareness of it? How're you getting people to sign up and subscribe? What're you doing differently? Are you doing paid marketing for Puck, or is all word-of-mouth? - Yes, yeah, absolutely. Oh yeah, no, paid marketing is probably our third largest monthly expense after, you know, talent, and liabilities, and all, just, basic stuff like that. So paid marketing is significant, actually. One of my co-founders was the head of growth at "The Athletic." So we're following a playbook that those guys really created. So there're a couple a answers to your question. One is, actually, word-of-mouth in this business, it's a very valuable tool. So you hire influential journalists, and they use their own personalized handles to make up an announcement, that's powerful. In the seven months or eight months we've been in market, we've put together a large, large, six-figure email leads list that we use to go after certain subcategories of potential readers. And then, yes, I don't know how you do this without paid marketing. I think that one of the mistakes of previous publishers is that they thought that it just took care of itself, you know. But the investment in Meta, and in Instagram, we do a little bit on Twitter, less effectively, and then LinkedIn and Google AdWords, is for a business of our size, we are making significant investments to market there. And we see that, very quickly, you learn a lot, and the customer acquisition costs go down, the cost per lead go down, and you begin to build a funnel and get smarter. So absolutely paid. - And do you have to think about who that target market is? I'm sure as a part of that work, when you're doing paid marketing, you've gotta be precise with every dollar that you're spending. You know, and it would be, the simple answer would be, you know, an affluent audience that's quite literate, but I'm sure there's a lot more to it. - True. - How would you define that audience that you're going after, and how does that guide the paid marketing that you're doing? - Yeah, I mean, you're right that it's definitely... Right now it's coastal, right now it's high household income. We've run some surveys to know that it's 30% C-suite, you know, 40% the tier below that. But it's also different based on every writer we're marketing. Like, we do view each writer as a line of business. So if you have a writer, you know, we're lucky to work with a guy, Matt Belloni, who is the foremost voice in Hollywood, used to be the editor-in-chief of "The Hollywood Reporter". And, guess what? Not surprisingly, you know, the majority of his attributable leads are in California, and they work in the film business, and they're in the entertainment business. But what we find that's really valuable is that we have products now, digital products, that allow people who come in through Julia Ioffe, who, you know, publishes on domestic and international politics. Once they discover Matt, they want to be in his world too. So we are blending a lot of data. And that's actually a very useful learning for us, 'cause we know the more writers that you subscribe to as a user, the higher retention we have. You know, and the higher lifetime value that user is gonna have. The majority of Puck subscribers are two-plus, subscribe to two-plus authors, and we feel very good about that 'cause it demonstrates a lot of value, especially in a world where Substack is charging $100 for a single author. But once we can... You know, we're confident that once we can move it to three, or maybe more one day, that's when the price gets really elastic, Seth, to your previous question. That's when we think, "Okay, maybe there's another tier to introduce here, or something else to do." - So here's another former business heresy that you're making into a positive, which is, you're saying you actually model out the financial return on a journalist, right? You're actually looking - Yeah, we do. - at it and saying, "This is worth hiring this person, and paying them a premium, and giving them equity," right, "in a company - Yeah. - that is growing fast." But in exchange, we figured out that that sort of unit economics, that makes sense. - Yeah. That's exactly right. - Right? And over and over again, - That's how we model it. - you're taking all of these things that were considered completely undoable, and that would sink the credibility of an organization. What you're proving is, actually, they're the modern way of doing business. So I think that's - Appreciate - extremely - you putting it that way. Thank you, thank you for contextualizing it. I think there's no other way. And by the way, we model these things, and then sometimes you're proved wildly right. Sometimes it, you know, - That's why you call it - life- - a model. - Exactly, right, life turns out to throw you a curve ball from time to time, but, boy, does this help you make decisions. And it helps you realize where the growth areas are in your business. And this is just one... The sort of, like, former newsroom editor in my brain tells me this. There's this concept of a journalist speaking about rounding out coverage, you know? And there're many things journalists have told themselves for years to make themselves sleep better at night, but it just not really true in this marketplace. And that is one of them. So, if we see that there's a lot of value in one coverage area, and there's room to grow, we will invest heavily in that. And we're making some of these decisions now. But we'll also see that maybe the total addressable market of potential Puck subscribers in said area is much better served by one or two people than five. And that's a decision that we can make very clearly, 'cause we don't wanna compete with "The New York Times", or "The Washington Post", or Politico, or even "Vanity Fair". We wanna be able to be something that is unique. And one of the other, I don't know if you listen to Brian Morrissey's podcast, but he had on Jay Lauf the other day, the, you know, former "Wired" and co-founder of "Quartz", et cetera, et cetera. And Brian used a term that I'd never heard of, but I loved, called genetically modified media. And to me, that called into question all these pretty verticalized innovations of a decade past that were, they were not special or unique, necessarily. You know, "Business Insider" started to beat business. Now, obviously, they had a huge sale, they'd done very well. You know, they're laughing all the way to the bank. But they were not... A lot of these businesses were not created with a content person at the table. They were just meant to go after a very narrow swim lane of a particular psychographic audience. So I think that the more you can make a brand unique, the better you have a chance of standing out in the marketplace, and that requires a little bit of guts. A lot of journalists are gonna be less likely to wanna do that. But once you take the plunge, it's very rewarding. - Jon, thank you very much. I know we've gone over on your time. I really wanna thank you for contributing. I could do this all day. I think your contributions're excellent, and I love the way that you're challenging the industry, and really appreciate you taking the time to be with us. Thank you. - Oh, pleasure's mine. Thanks Seth, thanks guys. - All right, thank you, Jon. Well, Seth, maybe just, do you have some... You've probably got thoughts, other, yeah . - Yes, for sure, right. I mean, and I'd love to hear if anyone else has. To me, the core is Jon's willingness to challenge those things that are considered taboo, and are considered undoable. However, it's not doing them without a context of respect for the journalism, right? And so, I think there's long been, you know, and I was thinking of this as Jon was talking, there's long been sort of a legacy model of an adversarial relationship between business and journalism. When you have a journalist who takes on a business role, and gets that perspective, and particularly his history in private equity, it brings a new way of thinking about things, to say, just because something like modeling out a journalist even a few years ago. And I think, even if you said it today in many legacy news organizations, the journalists might walk out of the newsroom, "How dare you model me? My job is to cover the most important news." And there is something to that, right? You don't want every journalist to be a part of that same business modeling of audience, because there is some service journalism, if you will, and I mean that in the noblest sense, not how-to type journalism, but the true journalism that we all need to know. There's no model for covering what's happening, right, between Russia and Ukraine right now, and the rest of the world. But it's important that it get covered, and therefore, there can't be a business model. But the other pieces of it, the columnists, the personalities, absolutely can. And he's using them, not fearing the idea of their identity because he might lose them. It really comes back to the very first word that popped up when we began this session, right? Andrew, you asked, "What's standing in the way of innovation?" And the first thing that came across the screen was "Fear". We have operated as an industry in that way, in many ways. We've said, "We don't want our journalists to become celebrities larger than the brand." Why? Because we fear they'll leave on their own. We don't want to model out their profitability, because we fear it will upset them, or it will cause us, or cause a reader, to question their objectivity or their mission. There are ways to do this that are smart about business that don't cause us to give up our integrity. And I think that's what Jon is tapping into, and it's why I wanted to be here. And I hope everyone saw, you know, why I thought he was a great choice for today's discussion, is, he's literally shaking up every rule, and saying that those rules don't matter as long as you keep a standard of journalism attached to it. In fact, it's our responsibility to challenge them. - Yeah, and in other words, I mean, the big takeaway I had was very much that sense of, "Okay, challenge assumptions, and, you know, really be disruptive. Yet, do that within a, I guess, a values or a purpose framework," which, you're very clear about. So it's like, "Okay, this is why we exist, and why the product has to exist." And, "Okay, now let's, like, kinda list all those rules that seem to exist in this industry. And now question every single one of them, and see if we can change it." And I would say, of course he's gonna talk about that in a positive light. I suspect there're probably some other things that they've tried to challenge, that maybe they've gotten either a bit of pushback on, or maybe it's just not really, you know, resounded with anyone. But that's okay as well. Or maybe it's a little bit too early, and they need to get some traction with some certain things first. So there's a dynamic to this as well. But it's quite inspiring to hear that attitude of like, "You know what, let's rethink all of these assumptions that are kind of, not just behind the business models of a sort of a legacy media organization, but sort of, you know, almost the religious principles of the industry," so to speak, and not throw them out the window - Not at all. - because you wanna be disruptive, and, you know, sort of a challenger for the sake of it. But rather, saying, "Okay, well, I wonder if this still applies today. We're still all doing it this way because this is how we do it. But if we change that, or tweak that," right? So it doesn't also have to be a binary, you know, it's-on-or-off kinda thing. I think, you know, turning the dial and say, "Oh, let's relax this constraint, and see if the sky falls in, or actually, if good things happen." And so, it comes back to what we were saying, actually, just before Jon joined, I think, around that sort of innovative mindset. Which, as Seth, you know, in another program we called, sort of, "A disruptive growth mindset." But the idea is you're doing that within sensible bounds, not just the sort of move-fast-and-break-things mentality kind of idea, but rather, doing it for a reason, and testing that, and seeing what works, what doesn't work. So I think behind the, you know, "Let's change, let's uproot things, and change things," kinda rhetoric that you get from people like Jon and other innovators and entrepreneurs in all sorts of industries, behind that is... And we heard a little bit of that, I think, from Jon, is saying, "Well, we model this stuff. We test this stuff. We pay attention to the data. We also talk to the constituents, so to speak." You know, the journalists on their roster, as well as, I'm guessing, that they probably also talk quite a bit to their subscribers, particularly the ones in that highest tier that they have, the sort of higher-value ones, and gauge their reactions. So there's a lot behind the scenes, I think, to make sure that this works. Yet the attitude behind it, I think, is a really refreshing one. And I think it's important-- Sorry, I think it's important to remember that the news business is a business and not a religion, right? And so, it is our responsibility to question things. And if you think of every single element of your business, that you are proud to represent, it's because somebody was in your role years ago, and challenged the way things were done, and changed it. It didn't come from the top of a mountain, it came from people sitting in a conference room, figuring out the best way to do it, and what they could try to do next. I was told that if there was ever a color ad on the front page of "The New York Times", I would be fired. I was told if there was ever an ad on the front page of "The New York Times", I should prepare for the place to close down. And over and over again that we didn't need a website, that we certainly shouldn't ever have pages on social media. All of those things were said inside what is now considered one of the most successful news businesses of all time. If we ever got rid of the name, the "International Herald Tribune" and made it the "International New York Times", it would be the end of the industry, it would be the end of their business. All of these things are false, and they are rooted in fear. By the way, smart business, conservatism, is also important, but somebody stood in the room where you're working today, or on the Zoom, theoretically where you're working today, and stood up for the change that you are proud of right now. And you get this window of time within your organization to be that change maker, don't sacrifice it for that security. You will be much more proud of having been the agitator, I promise you. - So with that said, I think we've got a few minutes remaining, and we did wanna talk about, sort of, really from a leadership-development standpoint, what're some, sort of, personal gaps that you feel you might have? And just on that point, I think, that we don't need to poll you on this, or do that sorta thing. But really, it's a challenge out to all of you to sort of reflect on, given what we've heard, say, using Puck and, Jon, as an example, or as a case study. And then, what we've been talking, kind of bookending that around innovation, and challenging assumptions, and being a positive disruptor, and those sorts of elements. What do you think in your own team, in your part of your business, in your role, and you as a business person and as a leader, what might some gaps be? And it's a useful activity to do, particularly if you're in an organization where you're trying to push through some change, trying to be sort of a positive force of change. But it's hard. And sometimes, it's also helpful to then just sorta take a step back, and reflect and say, "You know what, what don't I know enough about? Or what haven't I tried enough of? or what haven't I, maybe, taken that plunge on?" Not in a career-limiting way, of course, but in a sort of, "Well, let me try something. Let me get some buy-in, if I need to do that, around something that we haven't done before, and use that as a vehicle for some individual- and team-level development and growth as well." And, you know, we've talked a lot about innovation and challenging assumptions today, and that might be a place to start. It's no surprise that's kinda been the theme of the session, because that's what I, personally, also challenge myself on all the time. I mean, I work in a legacy business too, right? I work in academia. I work for a thousand-year-old university. You know, you can't get much more legacy than that, other than, I don't know, very few things. And so, it's the same thing. To be innovative, to think about new sources of revenue, to think about new approaches that make it a great place to work; and a great place to study, in our case; or a great organization to be affiliated with. We have to keep on moving as well. And that challenging has to start within before you take that out and sort of challenge what's on the P&L, or what is in next year's business plan, or whatever it might be. So I just very much encourage everybody to kind of adopt that mindset if you don't already. And even if you do, you know, the daily routine sometimes gets in the way, or often gets in the way, I think, of that reflection. So give yourselves a bit of time to have a think around that, and I think you'll find that quite fruitful. So that was sort of the personal-development element. And then, really, what we were gonna do now is just very briefly wrap up with a few kinda takeaways or concluding remarks. I'll bring that up. And I preface this, also, with when... I mean, those of you watching live, now, that's great. But of course, if anyone wants to share this once the recording is out, and give it to other colleagues to think about, then you're more than welcome to do that. So just to wrap things up. In terms of the spirit of how do we get ready for the future? It's a little bit back to some of the ideas we talked about earlier, but what I would like to sort of call it is finding a comfortable way of having what I say is a dual focus. You could think about this in terms of revenue streams. So you might be able to think about that in other ways as well. But basically, you have to, in today's sort of environment, in media organizations, as well as other sorts of companies, too, for that matter, kinda have one kind of focus on the stuff we're gonna be doing now, and then another focus on the stuff that we need to be getting ready for down the line. And, you know, it's kind of, maybe, back to that 70/20/10 idea that I mentioned before, or, you know, there're other ways that anybody may wanna think about operationalizing this. But, you know, frankly, we have to kind of, have to multitask strategically, in this world, in this environment. And so, that's just a way of living, I suppose, in our professional lives. But it's important to do that, because otherwise we lose sight of one issue or the other. And you might not think about that in terms of an individual focus. You might think of that as a team, or as, you know, the marketing organization, or however you wish to think about that. So it's not the burden solely on your shoulders isn't the way that it's intended to come across. The next sort of quick point I wanted to mention is really about innovation. So we've talked at length about this on the call today. But I would really, really wanna reinforce actually, kind of the last sentence here, on the slide, which is learning from others and looking beyond your industry for ideas. That looking beyond the industry bit I really, really think is, not undervalued, 'cause I think we would all agree that that's a good idea. But day in, day out, how often do you do that? Maybe that's one of the things you could think about in challenging yourself when you think about personal gaps. How much do you look outside of your organization, or similar kinds of organizations, for ideas? For lessons learned, for inspiration, for people grappling with similar problems, but in a different context? You know, how often do you do that? Or do you even task your direct reports, members of your team, does anyone have that as something that they try and do? And if not, why not? Because this is the way to explore the possibilities that will get you ready for the future, and allow you to have structured and rigorous conversations around business-model innovation, instead of, "Well, it'd be really good if we could do this or that." Rather, saying, "Well, okay, let's really dig deep into Puck's business model. Is there a version of Puck for us? Let's dig deep into whatever else's business model. Is there a version of that for us? Let's think about combining these things," or whatever it might be. Innovative thinking comes from being inspired by existing elements. And then, you know, kind of the Lego idea, you get creative and innovative ideas by combining the building blocks. And so, those sources of inspiration're important, and they're not just gonna come from your industry, or your market, or within your organization, if it's a very large one. So looking beyond those boundaries is essential for preparing for the future. And then, lastly, let's always remember that we shouldn't lose sight of the mission, the purpose, or our core values. And not just because there is a sort of a higher purpose, I think, for a lot of news companies. But they're a very useful tool to filter out all of those crazy ideas. Or to allow you to put some more emphasis on the new ideas, or the sort of innovation candidates that warrant some testing, or warrant a little bit more interrogation, or warrant more time to explore. Because part of the problem is once you get into a more, sort of, positive-disruption mindset, and innovation mindset, the floodgates will open. Particularly if you go and tell your team to come up with all sorts of ideas for innovating on product, or business model, or revenue lines, or whatnot. You know, you'll then be spoiled for choice, yet they'll also, you know... there's only so many things you can focus on and really explore. So having a solid purpose is going to be a very practical tool for kinda that first cut, if you will, or that first filtering stage around new ideas and proposals that come your way. So it's not just a good thing to have in terms of purpose, but it becomes a useful tool. And so, really, they're the main kind of bits of advice that we wanted to get across. Which sort of brings us to the end, but Seth, did you have any closing remarks before we wrap things up for the day? - No, I think, Andrew, that captures it very well. You know, as much as we're talking about challenging everything within our business, we know that the north star is the journalism, and the journalism comes first. And this group certainly knows that that's why you're here. I think by attending events like this, and by watching and reading more about this subject matter, and really learning from each other is where the strength comes. And so, I couldn't echo more what you just said, Andrew, around looking to reach out. It's why I used the example of McDonald's earlier. We should be learning from the people who're great marketers. And we should admit the fact, as an industry, And I'm the first one to own this, that we got into this business not to be product marketers. It's not why most of us got into news, right? It's because we care very deeply about journalism, or we knew that we were great on the advertising side, or on the operations or finance side. But very few people 15, 20 years ago got into this industry because they were great marketers. It simply wasn't a part of the operation, as much as a priority, as the way it is now. And so, the first thing we have to do is admit that we don't have that strength, and then go out and build those muscles. And so, the best way to do that is to learn from those who are experts, and to engage in those conversations, and learn from the great marketers that're out there. And the good news is marketers love to tell their stories, right? And all we have to do is listen and learn from them. And you saw, all we had to do was turn on the switch with Jon, and he really wants to tell that story. He's proud of the work, he also wants to learn from all of us. And so, that would be my encouragement to your next to last slide, Andrew, is to constantly continue this conversation, and be learning from people. Particularly the ones that you think are strange to listen to. Some of those strange thinkers, those really creative thinkers, are the ones who will spark something for your business as well, because we are now much more focused on being consumer and DTC businesses than ever before. That said, my last thing that I would point out is I just spoke to someone very senior at one of the big news organizations that has succeeded in the subscription business. And they said, "How do we get back into the advertising business?" So there is a pendulum to our industry, right? And the important thing is to be aware of all of those changes. And it doesn't mean that we lose sight of the core monetization of our business, to be challenging that model as well. - All right, well with that, I wanna say thanks to all of you for joining us and watching. You know, we really appreciate you taking some time out of your day. And please do keep in touch. You can connect to us on LinkedIn, of course. And, you know, in the spirit of actually looking at great marketing outside of your industry, please do follow either on LinkedIn or on Twitter, the Oxford Future of Marketing Initiative, which I run here at Oxford Said, and Seth is part of, and has been part of since day one. Because we bring together some of the world's best marketing-led organizations, and Big Tech platforms on the advertising and marketing side, to really challenge some of the assumptions in marketing as as a cross-industry discipline, and bring science to the table to try and actually understand the way forward using research. And so, we put out our findings, and all sorts of things, through those channels I mentioned. So, you know, please do connect, if you're not already, through that. And actually, in fact, coming up on the 27th of May, we have our annual conference, which you are welcome to join the livestream of. And so, further details're available on our social channels about that. So that's the advertorial little bit out of the way, but once again, thank you for joining, Seth. Thanks as always. - Thank you. - And we wish you all the very best. Thanks a lot.