Acquired - Inside the M&A Press with Bloomberg's Alex Sherman

0:00All right, listeners. Now is a great time to talk about a new partner of ours here on Acquired. LaGora, the agentic operating system that is redefining how the world's best legal teams work. Yup, it's sort of obvious that AI is going to completely change the legal industry. I bet most of you listening have dropped a contract into some sort of AI chatbot out there. LaGora took that insight and asked the question, what if you really built something with that power from the ground up for the legal industry?

0:30So the founders did exactly what great founders do, operate with obsessive customer focus. They embedded inside a massive law firm for months. They sat with the lawyers just watching how the work really gets done. And that's how you get features that customers love, like tabular review where you.

0:49drop in a folder of hundreds of contracts and it pulls every key term into a grid a lawyer can actually work with. Lugora's bet here is interesting. Since it lets each lawyer handle more complexity, any given person can increase the quality of their work and do higher value work, and this means that the pie can grow even as each individual task takes less time.

1:09And they recently launched LaGora agent offering greater intelligence and performance. The agent lets lawyers set an objective. Then it can handle the planning and the execution and delivery of the final product. Legal teams get to maintain full control and transparency since they're still involved where judgment is required. And LaGora works where you already work. You can use it within Microsoft Word while redlining or drafting. The early LaGora numbers essentially speak for themselves. When they have a head-to-head pilot with their top competitor, they win 70% of the time. Legora now has over a hundred thousand lawyers on the platform from 1200 legal teams in 50 countries. And crazily they went from one million to a hundred million in ARR in about 18 months. Truly insane numbers. And that is the real test.

2:01Plenty of things demo well, but the question is whether a busy associate actually reaches for it during crunch time, or whether a partner trusts it before going into a conversation with a major client. If your legal team wants to check it out, whether you're a law firm, or you're in-house at a company, you can learn more at logora.com slash acquired and just tell them that Ben and David sent you. Well, the nice thing is, I don't think this is going to be a super long episode anyway, so. Yeah. We said that before.

2:31Who got the truth? Is it you, is it you, is it you? Who got the truth now? Is it you, is it you, is it you? Send it down, see another story. Welcome to episode 21 of Acquired, the podcast where we talk about technology acquisitions. I'm Ben Gilbert. I'm David Rosenthal. And we are your hosts. Today is a special episode where we yet again break the mold and do a little bit of experimenting of our own here at Acquired.

3:03We are covering the press perspective of mergers and acquisitions and we have special guests with us Alex Sherman from Bloomberg. He's based out of their New York headquarters and is the host of the great Deal of the Week podcast. He started at Bloomberg in 2008 as an intern out of graduate school and has worked in a variety of roles and covered a number of beats since then. Thanks so much, Alex, for joining us and welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Yeah, yeah.

3:30We are excited to have you here, and especially as a former employee of the media industry myself a number of years ago now. I'm really looking forward to this one. I think we're going to have a great time talking about the press and how you guys cover deals, your business model and how it all relates to tech and acquisition. So thanks again for joining us. Yeah, absolutely. It's nice to be on this side of the table instead of the host of the podcast, which I'm using to put my answer in question. You're getting the questions posed to you. Yeah, you'll see us as the course of this goes around. I may end up being like just interviewing you guys for a force of habit, but yeah.

4:12Oh, that'd be. Our listeners can then see the tables turned. Yeah, for our listeners out there, we wanted to do this episode. We were talking with Alex about, you know, what would be the right way to kind of like work together on something or have Alex be on an episode. And as we were talking, we realized there's this totally fascinating process of the news cycle of M&A and why we read about stories when we do and how that whole process works that was really not something I had thought about even after doing 20 episodes of this podcast so we thought it'd be a cool idea to have Alex on and you know clue everyone on the process yeah so before we kick off uh we're gonna abandon our traditional structure for this show and do it as a special episode but i want to sneak in a little bit of history and facts about bloomberg um because i bet a lot of our listeners may consume bloomberg media but don't really know much about the company other than michael bloomberg former mayor of new york uh was the founder um but it's interesting so

5:15Bloomberg actually I think might be like the largest technology company that nobody really thinks about or talks about too much because people think about it as a media company but it actually is at its heart and its origins of technology company so it has it was founded in 1981 by Michael Bloomberg and Michael had been a partner at Solomon Brothers which was an investment bank on Wall Street And Solomon Brothers got acquired in either 80 or 81 by an entity that was rolling up banks and eventually became City Group. And as part of that acquisition, Michael as a partner made $10 million in the acquisition. And he used that money. He turned around. He started a company called Innovative Market Systems, IMS. Not quite as catchy, but definitely a little bit less self-serving. Fortunately for the brand a couple years later, just

6:09changed the name to Bloomberg. In 1983, so a couple years later, Merrill Lynch, another large investment bank actually invested $30 million in the company for a 30% stake. And then ultimately when Merrill got bought by B of A during the financial crisis in 2008, Bloomberg bought that stake back from Merrill.

6:30But the core business of Bloomberg is actually this thing called terminals which Alex you probably use every day and many consumers of Bloomberg media use I do I just don't have to spend the $25,000 a year per user fee that everybody else does Exactly and terminals are this was kind of like the WhatsApp or the maybe snap to more like the WhatsApp for traders for Wall Street.

7:01long before the smartphone or WhatsApp or AOL or anything like that, it's the communications platform for Wall Street and basically everybody uses it today. Yeah, and if for our listeners out there that do use this, sorry for butchering the explanation of what it is and for the listeners that don't, it's this total black hole for people that earn in the industry, that they actually, it's Bloomberg branded hardware.

7:25and you pay an annual fee and it hooks up to service and it has all this software installed and it sits on your desk and it's your kind of core operating system on which you work. And you make trades on the platform. You communicate with other traders on the platform. You can run all sorts of data and analytics on stocks, on companies, on markets. It's very, very cool. And as Alex was alluding to, it's also quite expensive when you're selling to clients that have a lot of money they're willing to pay a lot.

7:57Bloomberg, unlike, it's interesting, you know, and then we'll get into the show here. But in recent years, Bloomberg has evolved and started, you know, started doing radio, which is now podcasts like Alex's deal of the week. And television has TV channels, news, they're about 2000 plus editors and reporters at Bloomberg that Alex is part of that organization. But the Terminals subscribers to the terminals as Alex was leading to pay about $25,000 a year per terminal and there are in the neighborhood of half a million people that do that which makes Bloomberg quite a large company Yeah, it's really interesting to think about there's all these you know We've talked about the changing dynamics in the media industry and a lot of these different episodes and you know, it's

8:47primarily because the way that most publications work is just selling ads, and that's their main revenue model, and their subscription, those paywalls, and there's all these other things. But, you know, with Bloomberg, they produce all this media, but the core business is one with network effects, one that's based on technology, one that's essential for people to do their job, and it's not monetizing the ads on the publications. And there's a little bit of that too, because, you know, it's a decent business, but You know, certainly not compared to sell in terminals. So with that, Alex, with that long preamble, what's your perspective on all that being at Bloomberg at this company, but also being a journalist and a reporter and an M&A reporter? How does that play out for you? So I started at Bloomberg, as you mentioned, as an intern in January of 2008. And I have sort of without revealing the who, what or when

9:44I'd say I've had interviews with virtually every single competitor of Bloomberg since then at one point or another For to change jobs or because just someone was interested in meeting me and I've never left and there's a reason for that And the main reason is what you just described Bloomberg is and this has been the case since I joined the company Bloomberg is in better financial shape than all of our competitors. So it has been hard for me to rationalize why I would go work at say a newspaper, which really struggles financially and lives on advertisement when our entire operation is you could say subsidized by the Bloomberg terminal business, which does $9 billion a year in revenue and is not

10:35Add supported. Add supported businesses unless you're Google or Facebook are buying large not good. You don't have to look very far. Even digital media companies that have decent valuations really struggle and nothing is near the size of Bloomberg. So what I have tried to do at Bloomberg is to try to figure out what can I do to provide value here.

10:56to the core business, not just some sort of ancillary side project because you mentioned Bloomberg has business week, we have a TV station, we have a radio station, we have podcasts. But in the end, if you're not serving the core function of this business, you're not essential to this business. So whatever I did here, I wanted to make sure that I was providing value to maybe both the common user and the terminal user and covering M&A, I think is very central to that function because M&A stories move markets a lot more than almost any other story if we can break a deal if we can say this company is in talks to buy you know company x is in talks to buy company why the stocks

11:40and bonds are going to move for those companies. The prices are going to move, and it therefore makes it worthwhile for you to spend $25,000 a year to buy a Bloomberg terminal if you're trading on this information. And one very important note that your listeners should know is that Bloomberg terminal customers get our news 15 minutes before The rest of the world gets it. It's basically a built-in paywall. Wow, I realize that. That's right. If you're a terminal subscriber, you have access to this information first. Now, a lot of that advantage. If you're a hedge fund and you're trading the markets, and Alex breaks a story about a potential merger like that.

12:23That is, that pays for itself in literally the $25,000 a year pays for itself in seconds. Yeah, well, 15 minutes is an eternity. It comes in the sales pitch. There's no question that, you know, some of our biggest scoops while we try to sell customers terminals, we say, look, we broke this deal, you know, $6 billion in market value was created instantly. And then you would have missed it if you don't have a Bloomberg terminal. What I will say, though, and this is, this is very important toward the future of this business, is that that 15 minute, the 15 minute delay has eroded because of social media and in essence TV so what has happened is you still don't get the story first but as soon as we hit headlines it goes on Bloomberg TV so we have it virtually instantly so in other words we've sort of cannibalized ourselves that way and of course anyone that has a Bloomberg terminal can then tweet the headline

13:17So we realized that we live in a world now where the 15-minute delay is a little bit anachronistic. It still exists, but it's something that's discussed here internally almost all the time. Like, do we want to change this? Do we still want to keep it so far? We've decided as an organization that there's still value in this, so we do keep it. But, you know, Twitter and other forms of media have certainly put this 15-minute delay in a different category now. And I think we're okay with it because Honestly, so much of the trading is algorithmic that the money is made instantly. So really, you just need to be first. And as long as you're 0.001 seconds first, you've paid it off. After that point, when the stock jumps and everything's programmed in there, it's much less important. That's exactly where I was going to go. I mean, it's super interesting how that's evolved. It reminds me a little bit of when I was at the Wall Street Journal, you know, our debate was, you know,

14:15famously, thewsj.com had a paywall in an era when very few news organizations did on the internet. But that's like almost, that's like the, if you're talking about like access to a story when all that matters is.

14:31the news. That's totally different from this situation. And I was going to ask, like, how do you, as a reporter now, and when you're covering an M&A acquisition, when it is all about that data that's going to feed the algorithmic traders, do you, does Bloomberg now and do you, as you're writing stories, like set up data feeds that come out when you break the story? So we deal with this in different ways.

15:00So we know that there's going to be a reaction given our stories and there are ways within the Bloomberg terminal that we can actually somewhat manipulate the reaction and it becomes incumbent upon us to do this responsibly. So the most telling way that I can explain this is that our biggest stories are red headed they're literally red on the terminal so there's a scrolling set of headlines at the bottom of your terminal that are constantly going by and the biggest stories are highlighted in red so if we break a news story and we red headed there's almost always a massive jump in the stocks and that I would imagine has to do with algorithms from trading from traders that are set up

15:51However, they do it to be coded where if something is red headed, then the stocks move. So we will purposefully not redhead stories where we don't actually want to generate an enormous market reaction if maybe the story is more nuanced. So, you know, if let's say a company might be considering buying another company but they haven't entered formal talks yet or something like that.

16:19We want to make sure that we emphasize the nuance there so that maybe that particular M&A deal is not as advanced as we would maybe want one to be. Or maybe here's another example that talks have happened and ended and are now dead. That's not a lot. For example, you wouldn't redhead something about Apple to probably buy McLaren. That's right. In fact, we did not redhead that story when...

16:47because we did write sort of a version of it after the FT put out their story. And yes, we did not redhead that story. Although, although, let me put, let me put it this way, when, and this is something that we do as a sort of a service to our clients, when the FT ran that story, their headline was redheaded. So we did redhead their headline because the people that made that decision thought that that was an important enough headline. And the FT is of a stature where we have decided at Bloomberg that that they're right almost all the time. So, you know, we've given certain media organizations, the FT, the New York Times, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the benefit of the doubt that they're, you know, we know that their track record is good enough, that even if they beat us to a story, we typically will alert our clients to that fact. Now look story. Yeah, but it's interesting. It's almost like even at that point,

17:44This is what's so fascinating about how markets work. The news, you guys may have decided not to redhead or not to run a story about that potential acquisition, but once that news is out there, that impacts the markets. So redheading the news that the news, the news that the rumor is out there is probably super relevant to your customers. David, you've hit on something that we talk about all the time here as reporters, which is, If we get beat on a story, how much do we then have to react to somebody else's story? You know, so it's a... In other words, this wasn't news a minute ago, and we didn't feel it, but now that the news is out there, all the sudden things are baked into...

18:24the stock price. So is it worth it for us to negate somebody else's story just to have the stock price come down? You know, sometimes the answer to that is yes, and sometimes the answer to that is no, and just let it be and sort of let the fact that Bloomberg didn't match the story speak on its own. As look, you know, we weren't able to confirm this. So we're not really in the business of slamming other people's erroneous reports, but sometimes it is sort of necessary to do that if the market has moved.

18:52One way or another. Right and it's interesting that your incentives are kind of the opposite. I mean a lot of publications these days the incentives are around page views and you know they're their CPMs and what they want to do is make something seem splashier than it is so they get more attention and for you guys that you know You don't want to be the boy that cried wolf and you have a responsibility to your paying customers to deliver them what you believe is the most accurate representation of the news. So you actually have an incentive not to downplay things, but certainly to play them accurately. And if others are overplaying them, then you might be incentivized to give your customers the kind of edge by making sure to downplay it just to negate the overhyping.

19:39Yeah, definitely. Absolutely. Which actually I think makes this place sort of a good place to work because you don't get caught in that game. You can sort of feel good about yourself when you go home at night that your soul obligation is to just be as right as possible. And you're incentives are aligned with the truth. Absolutely. And that helps a lot when we cover M&A because I am reliant on people that are directly involved in these transactions to give me the information.

20:08to put out these stories. In other words, we can hear all sorts of information from indirect sources. Maybe they're bankers that aren't working on a deal, or maybe they're rival executives, or maybe they're X board members, or maybe they're friends of an executive, or maybe they're traders who have a financial incentive on their own. Well none of those sources are good enough for us to publish something on because they're not direct. So when Bloomberg runs a story as someone who reads it, you can be certain of the fact that this is not indirect information. There have been a number of cases where I have put out a story and it's happened to be the day before earnings or something like that. There was a company called Synaptics which is based in

20:53California and it was a takeover target for a Chinese conglomerate for about nine months and I put out a series of stories basically that said you know the the Chinese conglomerate is interested they're interested in this price they've done due diligence they've lowered it to this price there's still in talks and then eventually the thing died and it was a whole life cycle story of interested lowered price thing over and there were like four stories all along the way and I was the only one that reported it for whatever reason no one matched this story but I knew who my sources were and they're directly intimately involved in the process so from both sides not just one side so so no one has an incentive to lie here and and that that's also should be pointed out that we have to get

21:40both sides sourcing in order to run a story to be comfortable with the fact that it's right. So everyone has given a chance to sort of weigh in here and publish things. So I got a number of emails. I got a number of emails from from traders saying, you know, you're being played. You're being manipulated here. This is no one else is matching these stories. Someone is playing you to manipulate the stock and make money off it. But of course, I know who's doing this. And I mean, there's there's no way we'd all go to jail.

22:08And they have and it's just not their job to do that. So, you know, it's one of those things that I sort of have to explain to people like, no, you don't understand the way Bloomberg sourcing is done. I'm not getting this information from traders. It doesn't work that way. Yeah. Is that so across the industry. This is great transition. The kind of other thing we wanted to talk about. Another one of these several things we wanted to talk about is What are the nuts and bolts of how this works? Is that standard across the industry or is that unique to Bloomberg that you need? For you to feel comfortable going with a story that you have direct sources from both sides of a deal? Is that your standard and is that standard across the industry? This can be, in general, that is the standard. There can be exceptions if we know something is really in hot pursuit.

23:02And we know the Wall Street Journal is chasing it and we know the financial times is chasing it. There are certain times where if we are so certain of one side of the source, let's say it's the CEO of a company.

23:13that we've gotten to tell us something on background, all this stuff, by the way, it's never on the record. It's all anonymously sourced. So the whole job is based on relationships with people. So if we have an existing relationship with the CEO or the chairman of the board of a company and they've told us something, at that point, what we'll probably do is we still will reach out to the other side to say we're running this, but We may only give them a very short amount of time to sort of get back to us before before we say right like at least give them the chance to say no comment and then and then basically what we'll say is all right we've given them the chance they didn't wave us off the story we know our other sources so strong here that will go with it and in those cases you will see some stories that we run attributed to just a person familiar with the matter.

24:03But everything else will be attributed to people familiar with the matter. And by and large, that means that people on both sides have weighed in on this. That means both sides. Interesting. Wow, this is, that's so cool. Yeah, no idea. And these are the words that, you know, I mean, we read a lot of these articles given what we do on the show. And I think probably if you're not in the industry, that like eyes just gloss right over that. Like what does that mean?

24:31coded in that language are these indications about what the genesis of the story is. So I'll give you a little bit more. So there's a lot of inside baseball things that you would never know to look for unless you're talking to a reporter. You can sometimes glean where the information is coming from based on who the reporter is.

24:54People that cover M&A, you have to look up what these people do and what their jobs are. So on a given story, there may be three by lines. The first by line is typically where the main information has come from. Almost all major news organizations does this. So the person with the first by line usually has gotten the critical or maybe the first piece of information to kick off a scoop. This is based purely on fresh new scoops. Well, sometimes on a deal, reporter number one, is let's say the activist investor reporter. So you know that the information came from the activist because otherwise that person wouldn't be on the story. In other cases, maybe the first, the, the first byline is let's say, you know, Verizon just bought Yahoo. Well,

25:41We have a different Verizon reporter than a Yahoo reporter, same with the Wall Street Journal, same with Reuters. Take a look at who the first byline is. If the first byline is the Yahoo reporter, then the main information came from Yahoo, or someone involved with Yahoo. So then maybe the last byline is the Verizon reporter.

26:00Then you could say, all right, well, then that person probably just called Verizon to check up on that the information from the Yahoo side was right. So you can sort of figure out where the information came from. It's not always a leak, though, which is very important, I think, for people. We're not talking about strategic leaks all the time. And we actually talk about this. If you go to episode seven of my deal, the week podcast, I talk about this with the other two M&A reporters at Bloomberg. A lot of the information simply comes from uh, you know, what I would say to some degree is coincidence, which is I have been trying to get a meeting with a person for weeks or months. And finally, this person has said yes. And so I have lunch or coffee with them. And I'm able to ask the right questions to the right person to get information. And then I come back to the office, you know, well, maybe it's seven at night at that point. And we made a decision up Bloomberg. This story is not so important that it needs to go out at seven at night. We'll put it out tomorrow.

26:59So then the story goes out tomorrow, but like, you know, I had to have some sort of, you know, parent teacher conference with my kid in the morning. So the story eventually goes out at like three o'clock in the afternoon. Well, there's no strategy to that. But I think a lot of people read in, and in fact, you see it all the time on Twitter after stories I've broken. Why did this story come out when it did? Like, there's way less into that than you think.

27:22Almost all the time like the story went out when it did because like I got around to writing it when I did and I met with the right person at the right time That I would say 80% of the stories fall into that bucket and 20% of the stories fall into there's some sort of reason for why the story is going out right now All right listeners now is a great time to tell you about a longtime friend of the show Vanta AI has scrambled the whole security picture It used to be that you proved that you were secure once a year on audit or a static PDF, then everyone would not, and you're done. But in an AI first world, that doesn't hold up anymore. Yup, your risk surface changes every week now. A vendor turns on an AI feature or someone writes in a new model without telling IT, and your posture is different than it was last week, let alone at your last audit.

28:12Vanta's own research found that around 70% of companies have this, quote unquote, shadow AI running with no security review at all. Right. And that's where Vanta comes in. They're the leading agentic trust platform, meaning they've built the thing that closes the gap. And the way that they close that gap is Vanta agent.

28:31Think of it as a GRC engineer that's governance risk and compliance, except that it's software and it doesn't sleep. It finds the issues drafts the fixes and cuts the time that you'd spend on vendor assessments in half. In half, which is exactly why more than 16,000 companies today run on Vanta. Companies like RAMP, cursor and snowflake all stay audit ready and catch the risks that crop up between audits across every vendor, every AI tool.

29:00the whole environment. And that's the real value. Trust has to be continuous now, which is why Vanta automates your security, your compliance, and the work to earn and prove trust. We're huge fans of Vanta over here, and literally hundreds of acquired listeners have become Vanta customers at their companies over the years. So you can get $1,000 off Vanta at Vanta.com slash acquired. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash acquired for $1,000 off and just tell them that Ben and David sent you.

29:28From your perspective generally do the players in the stories Understand all of this coded language as well Like let's let's take Yahoo Verizon for example, which I know you spent a ton of time on that story You know by line comes out and say you know on on one of the pieces of information and let's say it's a critical story And the Verizon reporter is first on the by line. Does Yahoo, do people Yahoo then understand that means that this information is probably coming from Verizon? Or is this the background baseball?

30:11So it depends on who at Yahoo, you're talking about so your general CEO or or CFO or board member has no idea by and large so they rely on their own internal media relations or in the case of an M&A deal they actually hire outside PR firms and these people absolutely know in fact many of them are former journalists so they are hired specifically to help companies figure out where the information's coming from, and then be to sort of craft the story, and to work with reporters. So all the M&A reporters know the major external PR firms that are hired on deals very well. We speak to them all the time. So the companies are called, there's one that's called Brunswick, there's one that's called Sardverbinin, there's one that's called Joelle Frank, there's one that's called Abernathy McGregor, there's a handful of other ones, but those are the major ones.

31:04that are hired specifically to deal with M&A transactions. So when one company decides it's going to sell itself or is engaged in a sales process, they then hire one of these external firms. And sort of the PR at that point is then pushed in their direction. So in many cases, you actually stop dealing with the company directly. And then you sort of start dealing with the PR firm. So for instance, you know, in Yahoo's case, Yahoo had a pre-existing relationship with Brunswick, but a lot of the communication, you know, trying to figure out if stuff was right or not, ends up going through Brunswick rather than Yahoo. The Yahoo internal PR system also is still a method of getting at what information is right and wrong, and they were certainly still involved in that process. But it really does depend on how sophisticated the company is, whether or not they keep the PR internally or sort of hand it off externally.

32:00That's really interesting. It sort of leads me to start thinking about your week and your day. How do you decide what you're gonna chase down and when you're gonna do sort of long lead things where you should be aggressively trying to get this launcher, this coffee setup, and how do you decide, hey, this is the panic button? And then in terms of amount of media created, like how many stories do you write a week? You do one podcast a week? What's the total amount of media that you create?

32:29So on a given week, I'd say I probably write two to three stories on average. There's certainly no quota for that. In terms of what I'm focusing on, I have a chase list that I keep for myself that is built on sort of a running list of tips that I've gotten from everyone I speak with. So that runs the gamut of company executives, company corporate development type people.

32:55Bankers, lawyers, board members consultants that are hired by some of these companies private equity firms PR people I'm sure there's a few other people that are in there and that makes it all. But those are the general people that I'm meeting with that are at the level that they'd actually know sort of what's going on. That's sort of my rotating cast of characters that I'm meeting with on a given day. Then, when I have to sort of narrow in on something, so sometimes these sales processes, I'm coming up with purely out of the blue. And so nothing had been reported on this and then suddenly I'm able to break a story and now

33:35And now there's a whole circus around it. So one of the stories I broke was Verizon was actually had started talks and was interested in buying AOL. So this was before the Yahoo thing. So that was a story that sort of there was no narrative around that. And then my colleague Scott Moritz and I broke that story. And now all of a sudden it's sort of out there. So now everyone's chasing it.

33:57For the Yahoo story, Yahoo eventually decided they would go public with that and sort of admitted that they were going to sell the company. So then the whole world is on the Yahoo story, and then it's...

34:08So then becomes very high profile for me. So to your question about what to chase. Because now I know that that is going to be a really competitive story. And I know that Yahoo is a big enough company that like everybody's going to care about that. So I'm going to pay more attention to breaking a Yahoo story than any of the sort of deals of lesser significance either by name recognition or by size that may come along that still sort of technically under my umbrella beat of all technology media and telecom companies, which is my beat.

34:37Absolutely. So, you know, I may let a three or four billion dollar deal pass without really chasing it. If I'm close to breaking some news, even if it's just incremental news on Yahoo, because I know that's going to get a lot more readership, and it's going to get a lot more attention both internally and externally. Now, beyond name recognition, the other general metric I use is size. So, I'm trying to, you know, at Bloomberg, we sort of pride ourselves on breaking the biggest deals.

35:07So if I can break a $15 billion deal, that's going to be a lot more important to me than breaking a $1 billion deal. And really, we don't even pay attention to deals that are under $1 billion unless they come with some big name recognition. So maybe a company used to be worth a lot more. And now they aren't anymore. Or for some other reason, a lot of people happen to know this company because they're consumer facing or whatever it may be.

35:32So you're saying if we've got some small M&A that we want to sweep under the rug, just wait till Verizon's going to pull an acquisition and then do it then? Yes, exactly. That's exactly what I'm saying. Getting worried. Wait until Verizon's going to do an acquisition on a Friday and then do it on a Friday. Take it out with the trash. So this leads to a... This leads to a...

35:56Point that David and I had been talking about since kind of a couple of years ago before we were doing acquired and We were thinking about you know if we were gonna do a podcast maybe this would be an interesting area to go after because It sure seems like nobody talks about these deals after they're done. People talk about them when they're announced, people talk about them when they close, but there's never this retrospective or did that actually go well or trying to understand what trends can we extrapolate from these deals that have gone well and hence us starting this podcast.

36:33Why is that in your opinion? Like, why do we not see this sort of coverage later on beyond just the fact that, you know, that information is less actionable at that point? So one of the reasons is that it's much harder. It's much harder to write a good comprehensive story on that. And it would necessarily be sort of a featuring type story because you'd really have to dig in and sort of Start at the beginning look you guys do a good job of it on this podcast but from a reporter standpoint we need to decide do I want to? Spend the work on sort of figuring out exactly how Good this acquisition was from a culture standpoint from a financial standpoint You know, I have to go back. I have to figure out You know, it sort of exactly how this acquisition may have been

37:24profitable or unprofitable. A lot of times the numbers are masked because once a big company buys a little company, they don't necessarily need to break out all of the numbers that used to be publicly available when that first company was public. We joke on this show. That's why we love lawsuits. Right. Exactly. We get to dig into them. Exactly. The numbers all of a sudden become public or other things that were hidden for sure.

37:52But I mean, the biggest reason is what you said that it's not actionable. The main reason is that my incentive here, particularly at Bloomberg, is to move markets. I mean, it's something that is very well known here. The goal is to provide value to...

38:09a Bloomberg subscriber that's trading on information. So at Bloomberg, it's very cut and dry, which is like, if you have the time, you know, 80% of your day should be trying to break news on live deals. I mean, the other 20%, I mean, these are just made up numbers, but I'm saying whatever. The other 20% is sort of your own time. So if I wanted to write a story like that, it's Google time. Right. It's Google time. Exactly. That's right. It's free, you know, free project, Google X or whatever they call it, Google.

38:38So then it's up to me on what to do. So look, we are, this isn't quite what you guys do in the podcast, but we did decide as a team that we're going to take on a project for next year where we do oral histories of certain deals. So that's something you can expect for Bloomberg. So we will go back in time and talk to the people that were involved, let's say 10 years ago, I think we're going to try to do them around like acquisitions or anniversaries of acquisitions.

39:06So we're going to go back and talk to the people that were involved and ask them why they did this, what they were thinking at the time. It won't really be a look at sort of how successful or unsuccessful the acquisition was. So that's not quite what you're getting at. Those really are sort of what I read in Harvard case studies, typically Harvard Business School case studies at business school. So for people that have actually gone to business school, I think you do see that a lot of the time. But those are not uh, you know, publicly available in general for people. So you really don't see that very much. So one of the reasons, yeah, as it's not actionable and the other reason is that it's just sort of hard to do it given the fact that you have mandates to do other things. Yeah. It's a little bit like, um, it's it's like, you know, getting news on Facebook versus, you know, reading articles on medium or something like that or, you know, or, uh, or, you know, or longreads.com or something like, you know, it's the, um,

40:03You want the dopamine, like the dopamine hits of, and which for you guys is moving markets and for the news industry, like there's a lot more, in aggregate, there is a lot more dollars and value and buzz in that than there is on the, you know, the hard at going back and eating, you know, like a whole playful of vegetables. I do think that another part of it is that the general public, Really just wants to know the headline information so you know what companies buying what company and how much is it and then like they sort of move on so that's how that's how the news I mean all the news cycle works like that and in all forms and fashions of life what's the headline news okay I got it will just move on that's sort of what our culture is like now so even in what you're talking about which is like was an acquisition successful or not

40:55You know, almost all I want to know, it can be sort of told on a gut level. So, like, have I read how successful Facebook buying Instagram was? Like... No, do I know that Facebook buying Instagram was really successful? Yeah, I do. I'd like to know maybe how successful it was, but once I know how much money Facebook gained from Instagram, which would require some analysis, that's about all I need to know. I don't really need to read the why behind that. People that are really involved in this stuff and do it for a living, I'm sure would. But then all of a sudden, now you're dealing with a new form of media.

41:30which is like, all right, well, if I'm only writing something to the people that are really involved in this, now I'm almost working for a trade publication rather than the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. So I'm gonna write something that's really focused on from an audience perspective about who I'm writing for.

41:45Yeah, I mean, that's something we think about with this show all the time. David and I have looked at our numbers. We probably had three sort of check-ins since we started the show trying to figure out, okay, what's the future of this thing? You know, this is like a side project for both of us, and you know, you start looking around another technology podcast like, whoa, how big could it get?

42:02But you're right, it's super niche. It's this thing that it's people that are in the M&A world or in startups and hope to one day be in the M&A world. And that's got a ceiling. And I think you talking about the fact that it kind of fits under that moniker of trade publication is the best way to succinctly put it that I've heard yet. Yeah.

42:21It's something that I think about too for my podcast, which is, I mean, it's an M&A podcast, so I think to myself, like, all right, well people that have some sort of demonstrated interest in M&A, which pretty much means you work in the business, we'll listen to this. And how do I get out of that box? How do I grow an audience for my podcast too? So just this past week's episode.

42:43is Rob Kindler, who's the head of M&A at Morgan Stanley, global head of M&A. And his brother is a stand up comedian, Andy Kindler. So I had them both on the show. So I'm trying to figure out ways myself of like, all right, well, maybe Andy Kindler fans will listen to this thing. And it's not just the M&A crowd. And like, I've got to think to myself, how do I grow the audience here so that it's not just sort of the standard fare of people that work, you know, and sort of live and breathe this industry?

43:11Well, I can tell you that I think your idea to do the what you and the team have decided to do with kind of more of the feature piece around anniversaries. Just looking at what people have told us about this show has a lot of merit because when we do certain episodes, for example, the Snapchat and Facebook acquisition that wasn't episode, that has a tremendous backstory and there's drama and listening to David run through the acquisition history and facts there is enjoyable in its own right just as a form of entertainment. So I think that there have been a few instances where we had a more dramatic history reading there.

43:49That is something that we continually have people tell us. You know, I actually am not that interested in M&A, but I listened to that episode specifically because my friend told me it was interesting and I loved hearing that story. Yeah, that is absolutely something we found on and been spot on on this show. And our listeners can tell us, you know, if you disagree, but I doubt you will. Like, people listen to us for the stories. You know, and that's like, that's what's so interesting that we found is this difference between, you know, news versus stories versus analysis and getting that balance rate, obviously our listener base and potential listener base is much smaller than Bloomberg's. But I find it fascinating how those three pillars of what's going on vary by medium. Yeah, my idea for the... I don't know if I should give this away because my competitors at the Wall Street Journal are listening, they'll take the idea.

44:38I'll at least tease you guys that it's it's sort of what you're hinting at where that there is sort of an anniversary coming up of a counterfactual a deal that did not happen So that is what that's sort of what the oral history that I'm thinking of doing is to talk to the people that were involved and sort of why it didn't happen and like what the world would have looked like if it did yeah Well, that's what I mean, I think I think that's far our latest episode on Android is Probably on track to eclipse this, but I think our most popular episode is Snapchat. It's neck to neck with LinkedIn because we did that one. That was the first time that, you know, not that we were anywhere close to breaking news there, but it was still at the top of the news cycle when we released that episode. So I think it was a lot of people asking their friends, what do you think of this LinkedIn thing? And we had already put up an episode so people would say, you really should listen to that at this podcast episode to hear about it.

45:27But that was like a spike when it was relevant in the news, but Snapchat just keeps getting tons of downloads. And I think it's because of this like, oh, it's this anti-history, you know, like what the world could have been if Snapchat were part of Facebook. Yeah. Also, I think a lot of people are simply just fascinated with Snapchat. I know I am in part because.

45:48I mean, I'm 34 years old and I can't figure out how to use Snapchat. So it's the first company that has a product where I'm like, I am aged out of this at this point. I don't know what this thing is. It's depressing. Really not intuitive to me. I don't fully understand why it's popular. That said, I do see sort of a Snapchat model here that where I feel like other companies are, we're all sort of moving towards something. I just actually, We just met with the whole executive team at line, the Japanese company that does its messenger service. And they were sort of explaining to us how in Japan line and some other companies have sort of...

46:35Taken the path of having your whole ecosystem done through its platform. So online, you know, you can order a cap. You can basically order your meals through line. So all of these other independent apps in this country are sort of housed within one ecosystem with line. And you can see Snapchat.

46:58Developing into that certainly Facebook is trying but you know Facebook Messenger is still sort of very much independent of Facebook and sort of that your core Facebook your news feed your pictures It's not quite all lined up in the same sort of bubble ecosystem Obviously like I think even the new iOS 10 for Apple you're sort of seeing things move in this direction a little bit, but you know, it's an app store baked-in die message exactly Exactly. So I think Snapchat has it right where they've realized, oh, this sort of housing form of chat and general communication can also be used to do other things. One of the questions we were going to ask you is a section we always do on the show is tech trends and what this deal represents in tech trends. And I think that's a perfect one of that we were going to ask you, what tech trends do you see covering the landscape that are coming?

47:53How messaging, like, you can look to Asia and see how messaging has evolved into this operating system there. And then the question I think is like, is and if so, when will that start to be the reality in the US as well? Major.

48:12Major wave that's happening in Asia and and the question is is that coming here to the US to I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this one because here's a here's a tech trend that has not happened yet, but I'm I want so before I was an M&A report up a number that I covered media for three years and then I transitioned into this role covering all Technology media tell every media at a media organization is like the ultimate neighborhood for sure Absolutely, right look you're you're around a lot of people that sort of came from organizations that you're covering from to so it's sort of like You know, oh like I need like a time ink source like well, I just walked three rows down and like that guy used to be the managing editor at time. That's everything so Here's my question to you We have seen the way a lot of

49:00Consumer-ish media tech companies are valued for years now has been based on users, whether it's MAUs or some other form of just user growth. That has been the main way that a lot of these media-ish companies have been valued.

49:16But at some point, and we're already seeing it with some, like let's say Twitter, the growth stalls. But there's still value to these products, but the way Wall Street has valued them, basically there just seems to be a cap. And then they may turn into sort of zombie-like companies because the user growth isn't there, and they're not making any money. So what's the way out? Well, right now, the answer seems to be like they just sort of give up or sell. But I wonder.

49:42If one day we see some of these media tech media companies that have always been based on users, if they can somehow formulate a new way of generating revenue through some degree of subscription, which we have not seen. So, you know, Twitter has never thrown out a subscription fee, certainly Facebook hasn't, and they've never wanted to because the way Wall Street has valued them, that would actually be sort of an a fame out of what they're going for.

50:12but you know at one point but but but we have seen among more traditional media companies that have gone online they have transitioned to something that you would call a subscription model which is the paywall so you now have to subscribe to the New York Times or subscribe to the Wall Street Journal so is it just a matter of time before this sort of traditional media that has gone online meets the new media that has not done this and do we see some of these older new media companies go subscription. Well, Alex, I think you're forgetting about the vibrant community over at app.net, the subscription only Twitter. That is a blast from the past. Yeah, right. So I, you know, I look at this as a, I think the reason why there is a little bit of success with

51:06paywalls at publications and why I think that would be the nail in the coffin for any any form of kind of like new media that involves it's called social media is that traditional media doesn't require network effects and the, you know, let's say Twitter, for example, absolutely does. And as soon as people are, you know, my sources are no longer on Twitter, like the people that I want to be following because they decided not to subscribe, it's less valuable for me. And then I don't get that content, so I'm incentivized not to subscribe.

51:36And I think that there's this unidirectional value creation that happens from traditional media companies to their readers. And there's this massively bidirectional interconnected web on social media where if people start falling out of the ecosystem, then everybody else is less incentivized to pay also. Isn't it possible, though, that some of these systems become so sticky?

52:03invaluable to our life that if you present people with the option of having to pay some sort of Really small micro payment which you can then slowly move up over time that people wouldn't just drop out Hmm if you had to pay a penny to stay on Facebook Would you do that? My whole life's on Facebook all my pictures are on face. Well, it's interesting what's app, you know, took this took this approach That you know, it was a dollar a year he's and free for the first year crucially for the first year and then a dollar a year I Think it's super interesting what you're saying. I think well The cynic in me says, Alex, come on, that would require actual creativity and that would really Silicon Valley is creative on the surface, but you know. Well, I mean, I think the more like the cynic in me says people don't pay for things and people especially don't pay for...

53:00Well, I guess, just to say people don't pay for entertainment, people don't pay for websites, but. Well, here's why I think you could do it, though, but of course they do pay for entertainment. They pay for TV, for instance. No, I mean, that's eroding a little bit, but that's still like a hundred million people that pay for TV in this country. Oh, would they do a rev share? Like, could you see Twitter influencers getting paid out a percentage of their followers? Yeah, well, Ben, I mean, the crux of the point that Ben's bringing up is unlike a Wall Street Journal or a Bloomberg or New York Times, Twitter, Facebook don't pay their reporters to generate content. It's dependent on people being on the system. Or even like YouTube. Yeah. That's actually the interesting middle graders. YouTube does pay for people. Right. So they pay their high-end content creators and they have a subscription service on to bread. Yeah. But where I think this could work, I actually think Bloomberg

53:56is could be a really interesting model here that people haven't really tried in this area in tech. You guys, just like we were talking about in the beginning of the show, you monetize the information and the meaning of what you do and sell that as a very, very expensive subscription to people who care a lot about that, and yet for Ben and me we go to Bloomberg.com and get your news and read your reporting for free It would be super interesting, you know Twitter especially I think could do that if they made the right investments like what is the data that an aggregate is generated from Twitter from the fire hose quote-unquote that is very valuable to people You know and they're it's interesting like there's clearly demand for this there are third-party companies that do this there's data sift There was all the company topsy that Apple bought

54:55And there are a few others. But obviously as a third party, like you're not going to be able to do that anywhere near as well as Twitter itself could. There could be a huge latent revenue stream. Yeah, it's tough. It's tough. I mean, obviously the big fear there is you don't want to disincentivize your power users from using Twitter. So it needs to be something where it's very purely additive for them to actually pay for whatever it is that they're getting rather than, you know, Sort of have them feel like they're targeted to pay more money Right Does Bloomberg use paywalls at all we don't we don't because we have the terminal so we've decided that we're not now again that that that is a discussion that I know has happened here Before the sort of the idea of should we use a paywall so the decision so far Has been no because we sort of have this built-in paywall in our system but

55:53You know, one day I suppose that could change. Super. It's a you're bringing me back here to my to my days at the journal and in media. And they're very happy memories in one regard. But look and business models of media are tough. Look, it's this the you know, we're talking about Twitter or sort of social media in general. And one point that I that I do want to make here, which again, sort of it speaks to an issue that we have sidesteped. But The issue still remains, which is, as a reporter now, I no longer really, if I have a reputation of being right, I actually don't really need Bloomberg's infrastructure anymore to move markets. So I'll give you a real world example, which is when Comcast acquired Time Warner Cable,

56:47I got that information at like 9.30 at night. And I had it sourced. We were good. I knew I was 100% right. But it was 9.30 at night. And the Bloomberg infrastructure, sort of among like my editors, like no one was at work. They're all at home.

57:09I had to sort of figure out, and I was also sort of new to this role. So I had to figure out, like, how do I alert the right people here to get them all online so that they can approve my sources so that we can actually write this thing? And not only do the sources have to be approved, but then I have to write four paragraphs, and editor needs to read those four paragraphs, and editor then needs to queue up headlines. We need to make the decision to redhead, as I talked about before, which of course, that requires sort of a new level of authority.

57:38So in the amount of time that it took for me to figure out all of the different levers that needed to be pulled, the right people, the contact, the phone calls to be made, that first weren't answered and then were in that amount of time. David Faber, who at CNBC got the news and just sent out a tweet and he broke the story on Twitter, which CNBC sort of allowed him to do while I had the story at least 42 minutes before He did because he just broke it instantly so you know, it made me think like Twitter has sort of up ended this like I don't need Bloomberg anymore Like I could have broke this thing on my own, but but but you know that's gonna be so fresh That's like as a venture capitalist when you miss investing when you pass on Facebook, you know, right, but but but of course I do need Bloomberg because they're paying my salary So I would have to be a real entrepreneur and be confident enough that like I could sort of start my own thing on my own You know and just sort of use my example of

58:36You have the example right of you know Kara Swisher and and and and vaulted at Recode, you know who've done this But it's still even telling me they got acquired by Vox. Exactly. And they make their money in part through their conference's business. The better example might be the information, which is Jessica Lessons, which charges. So they are a subscription media model like we were talking about. They charge several hundred dollars per year for their information. And I don't know exactly how successful they've been at getting people to pay for their information.

59:13You know, it's not sort of a slam dunk. You're obviously like Bloomberg has enough else going for it that like I'm not like, you know, if you're listening to this bosses, I'm not leaving. What you can't have is an independent though, and this is like the ultimate tech trend for me is they don't have the red head, right? Like they don't have the the customer relationship and proprietary data channel to your customer, you know, the financial traders, right? Like, or whoever the equivalent is in whatever industry, if you control that, you, you, well, but all you need is that to initially build the trust. And now that Alex has that, if Alex were to tweet, I would suspect that he would be able to move markets on his own. So it would have needs to build the red head. In fact, there was one time several years ago, I think it was,

1:00:04I think it was a shutter fly being for sale though that might not be right, but there was one instance several years ago where I Thought that we had this actually changed Bloomberg's tweeting policies this one mistake I made where I thought the story had gone out and tweeted something and actually Front run my own story and and so I was a real-life test case where I did move markets my my tweet was picked up I Traders and the stock move like 5% because I said Shutterfly and hired you know catalyst to sell themselves or whoever it was Wow, and then and then we realized the story hadn't gone out we immediately pushed out the story at that point But you know there was like nine seconds of confusion there where I had basically beat my own story and then we and then we re we sort of huddled up as an organization and we were like okay from now on Bloomberg reporters can't tweet out

1:00:57Stories until the story has a link involved to it. So that we're sure the story has gone out to the world. Now again, we've even amended that policy by now we have a link that only terminal subscribers can see.

1:01:16so that we can tweet out with this link. And then you can, so the normal web link doesn't go out still until 15 minutes after the fact, but we keep sort of coming up with like, you know, little incremental amendments to this in order to sort of try to keep up with like the general world of social media with this built in 15 minute, you know, difference. And I imagine that if I speak to you next year or two years from now, like the rules will have changed again.

1:01:46Wow. All right, listeners. Now is a great time to thank our longtime friend of the show, ServiceNow. If you are running a large enterprise, AI agents are likely spread across every team and deploying them is no longer the hard part. Yeah. The hard part is knowing what permissions they have, what employees are using them for, or what decisions AI is making. AI security for an enterprise at scale is not a small concern. Like the risks are real.

1:02:15Exactly. And the challenge with AI is governing it, securing it, measuring it, and making sure that it actually delivers value. That is why ServiceNow built the AI Control Tower. Yep. AI Control Tower gives enterprises a single place to see, manage, govern and optimize AI across the entire business. And it works with any AI, not just theirs. Every device on your network, every permission across every system, every AI agent, visible and secure in one place. And ServiceNow can do this.

1:02:44because they've spent more than 20 years building the operational backbone of the enterprise. The workflows, governance, approval, security controls, and institutional knowledge that power how work actually gets done across IT, HR, customer service, finance, and security. Service now already runs more than 100.

1:03:02billion workflows annually, and trillions of transactions for more than 85% of the Fortune 500. So when companies need a place to govern AI at enterprise scale, they're building on a platform at the center of how their business already operates. And in a future that isn't going to be one AI, it's going to be thousands of AI agents working across every function of the company. But the question is, who's managing them all? So if you're trying to turn AI ambition into real business outcomes and make it work safely, securely at scale, go check out servicenow.com slash acquired and tell them that Ben and David sent you. One quick topic we wanted to cover before we move into follow ups and carveouts is any advice you have so many of our listeners are work at startups are entrepreneurs are aspiring entrepreneurs and maybe this is earlier in the life cycle them where you play of companies but the press for startups is like such a black box like if I'm a startup CEO or founder

1:04:01And I just have no idea how you work. I have no idea how to get in touch with you. Should I invest in building relationships? Any thoughts from your end being on that side of the table of how entrepreneurs can best interact with you? Well, you absolutely should try to build a relationship.

1:04:20But the way you should try to build a relationship is to know what our job is. So, and that very much depends on who you build a relationship with. So there, certain outlets are going to cover startups much more closely than others. So, you know, Bloomberg plays in sort of the big game land, where like we're going to write a lot of stories about Uber, but like we're not going to write any stories about your piddling, you know, million dollar valuation startup at this point. You're not covering series A funding announcements. No.

1:04:49No, but you know tech crunches or like whoever whoever might be that sort of covering that at that level So so yes build a relationship with the Bloomberg reporter, but don't expect us to sort of car you favor and write about your startup that like nobody knows because we just don't do that here. Like it's just we don't have the audience for it. So nowhere we're coming from, it's not personal. It's just that like our editors are not going to allow us to write that story. However, you know, the day that you guys, you know, all of a sudden you've...

1:05:20put out a series B series C series D and now like you're in, you know, you know, almost unicorn territory or unicorn territory, then yeah, like it's good that you put in the time to make a relationship with the reporter because now that your company is big enough.

1:05:36to write about like now you're probably gonna get a more favorable story because you've spent the time having some lunches and coffee and you've built a relationship with the reporter and the reporter knows that he can go to you for access. You have to remember where the reporter's coming from too. What we want is exclusive information.

1:05:53That's what we want. This happens all the time with smaller M&A deals with me that are sort of pitched at me. And like, if a deal sort of with two companies that like no one's really ever heard of, and it's right on that billion dollar line, like we might cover it or we might not, if you give us the information exclusively, if this is a Bloomberg scoop, we'll cover it. If you wait and put out some sort of press release or you give it to somebody else first, like we're not going to cover it, it doesn't give us any value. So you need to figure out and this is maybe the best piece of advice I can give to an entrepreneur that wants to build a relationship with the press, ask the reporter what matters to them, and then figure out a way that you can give the reporter what matters to them. So for Bloomberg, it's exclusive information. For somebody else, maybe it's, you know, I don't know, a sit down interview with the CEO or whatever it may be, but figure out what it is that the reporter wants and whatever that is will be dictated by what the organization finds meaningful.

1:06:51And then, you know, down the road, if you're able to sort of cash in on that, then I think you'll get sort of the positive result you're looking for from the press. Yeah. And it's, it's probably always exclusive information. But, but it's one type of exclusive information for me. Exactly. You know, it's a deal for another type of organization. It's a sit down interview. That's, that's so right, David. And that's, and that's, I think, the important part to make, which is, in many ways, you can sort of give out eight different scoops on the same story.

1:07:20you know, just sort of piecemeal your information and give one person one piece of exclusive information and give another press outlet, another piece of exclusive information. And then, you know, we code the Wall Street Journal the New York Times, the Financial Times, and Bloomberg can all sort of say that they had scoops and because you've sort of divvied out the information, you've now gotten seven different stories instead of one with six others ignoring you. Love it. In VC, we call that a party round. Right, exactly.

1:07:51Yeah. This has been awesome. I have had so much fun with this. Like I said, reliving my old, my old glory days in the media and tech press. How long were you at the journal, David? I was there for just a year. So a very short stint. But So I can't speak as any sort of expert, but it was a lot of fun. I think I was the youngest person there by about 30 years. Right. Naturally. Yes. So now you'd only be the youngest person by 25 years or whatever. 20, 20 years. Yeah. Couple of quick follow ups. And this will be fun having Alex on the show here. So we do.

1:08:35We have three quick sections to wrap up the show. One is follow ups on things that have happened with deals we've covered in past episodes. Two is hot takes, which are any M&A deals that have happened in the last couple of weeks. So we do a 30 seconds or less quick analysis of, and then three is carve outs, which are fun, unrelated items we talk about.

1:08:57But Alex is probably up on a lot of this stuff. So feel free to chime in if you like or Ben and I will lead, but any thoughts please chime in. First follow up we have is Instagram. Alex, you were joking about, you know, yeah Instagram is probably good. I have no idea how good it is. The A plus of Instagram keeps on rolling. It is our on this show Instagram is our benchmark for the best.

1:09:23deal, the highest rated deal that we have ever had on this show. So they announced this week that they now have, we've talked in the past with followups about user numbers, also going back to our conversation, Alex that we just had on social media and aggregating users and the value of users. They announced this week that they have 500,000 more than 500,000 active advertisers. So separate advertisers organizations buying ads on Instagram over 500,000 that's up from 200,000 in February yeah, I mean any by It's interesting because advertisers are where the revenue comes from, so it's interesting to look at that, but just by looking at the growth of that, I mean, it's been, what, eight months since February? And seeing Instagram's ad program is what, like, two, three years old now. So seeing, like, in eight months to grow that much,

1:10:22probably most thankfully due to the fact that the advertiser portals are integrated if you're going in your advertiser that already is using Facebook you check a box uploads in different assets and boom now you have an Instagram ad they've really like talk about synergies they've really leveraged their relationship and the tools that they have for Facebook advertisers to have a whole new you know incredible growth channel there with Instagram yep next one next one we have real quick is Amazon Obviously, Amazon wasn't acquired, but has been an acquireer on several companies we've talked about and reference a lot. Just today, share price hit 800 bucks a share. Ben, you're trying to time the market on buying Amazon. I can tell you just give up. Property values, not the re-given investment advice on this show. Property values in Seattle are now at an all-time high. The Amazonification of Seattle is something

1:11:18really incredible to watch and the economic growth in the region from this company starting right in the center of the city and it kind of exploding outwards and is now in three or four separate neighborhoods overtaking downtown. We've talked a lot about their strategy before. I think I couldn't be more bullish. I still am stupidly trying to time the market and wait for investors to cool a little bit so I can get in but I continue to say I should just buy in now.

1:11:45And for the investors on the show, not advice, but if you are looking for a derivative way to play the Amazon story, you should invest in Seattle real estate. Hot take. We only have one this week, real quick, a small deal, but interesting one, relevant to our episode on ways and discussion of the future of automotive and transportation and technology is Ford buying chariot. Yeah, this one's interesting to me. So chariot is basically the public bus system, but better and with fewer stops and subscription-based. I believe it was only in San Francisco. I believe it was only in San Francisco. Yeah, and you pay, I think it's like a hundred, a hundred bucks or something and you get access to, um, to these, you know, great buses that pick you up at a shuttle. Yeah, yeah. So as far as Ford breaking into

1:12:42This trend of service-based or subscription-based car ownership or self-driving cars, transportation is changing in a lot of ways. This doesn't seem that interesting to me. It seems like there was a lot more things they could have bought that would have signaled to me. They're doing something really transformative.

1:13:06I'm not totally sure what the play is yeah, I'm not either there's a small deal but but definitely know we saw GM by crews earlier this year which you know crews that game changing right like you dropped this thing on the top of your car and it can become self-driving Yeah, are you kidding me Bloomberg probably covered that deal probably not chariot. Yeah, we're obsessed with this sort of self-driving car And you know, that's why they the sort of the you know, we decided to redhead that apple McLaren story even when McLaren can't later came out and denied it, which by the way, as sort of an aside topic, they didn't have to deny that. So I was a little, I don't know why they publicly denied it because based on our sourcing, they had at least had conversations with Apple. They phrased that we're not in talks right now. So I'm not really sure why they denied it rather than just stayed silent. But whatever, I'm sure they had their own reasoning for doing that.

1:13:56And it was interesting. Did it positively affect them because the rumors seriously negatively affected Apple stock? So, you know, you never know in these cases, like because it's seriously negatively affected Apple stock, that may have been why they came out and denied it. Apple may have gone to them and said, please do this. Apple, I can tell you from a reporter standpoint, is like sort of one of the few companies that acts as like the mafia. I mean, the amount of fear.

1:14:22that they put into other, I heavily covered when Apple was seriously considering coming out with their own TV product back in, I want to say 2013, 2014. And they were, I was covering media then, so they were in discussions with Comcast and Time Warner Cable and other companies to potentially figure out if they wanted to, sort of own the programming themselves or just sort of be like a partner with the cable companies and use their programming. And it was so difficult to get information from the media companies because they basically said, like Apple told us not to say anything. And you just, that was, I had never heard that from any other company that the company had done business with. Yeah. Apple's not your boss. Exactly. They were free to talk about every other company they did business with, but Apple. But it was like, no, no, no. Like, you know, we can't, I think Steve Jobs was still alive.

1:15:16then to so like maybe it was a yeah I think Katie cotton was their head of PR and apparently you know that is much much tighter back in that era than the nowadays I'll throw in one more hot take for you guys which is just I'm curious to see sweet what happens with the Yahoo sale to Verizon now that Yahoo has said that 500 million of their users were breached in this big data breach from whatever state-sponsored hacker hacked into their system back in 2014. I don't know if this will have any repercussion on the Verizon deal, but already you're starting to hear outside or speculation that if this does turn out to be a big deal, maybe Verizon would push to try

1:16:03to alter the price of the deal. So I don't know, you know, a lot of that stuff will certainly come out in the next, you know, days, weeks, months. Interesting. Do you know if that's precedented to alter the price based on something like this, or any event in general? I mean, it definitely has the potential to be materially adverse, which I presume all of the contracts in another former life, I was an investment banker, and yeah, all the...

1:16:30All the merger agreements and stuff will until closed will have That's right engines using and max material adverse clauses. That's right. I think this would definitely fall into that Yeah, I don't know enough to speculate but But that you know if if the breach is as bad as it sounds like it could be You know, I mean, you're talking, wasn't that long ago that the Sony hack happened and like the amount of value destroyed at that company and cost they had to incur is definitely material. Right. So who knows? This apparently happened in 2014 and like, I don't know what has been done with it since. So like, maybe that would suggest that it's not that material. But I don't know. Obviously, Verizon is going to want to look into the details of this. So that might be something to take an eye out on. We will, we will be on the case when it does. All right. Carvets.

1:17:21Ben, what you got? So my carve-outs for new listeners is a thing that we do that is a book or a piece of media that we've consumed that may or may not be related to the topic of this podcast. And a lot of times I'll give an article or something that gave me pause and was something that I like reflecting on or might be more philosophical or any of those things.

1:17:46This one, this time I'm going kind of totally out there. There's a little recap video from Burning Man on Vimeo by user Phil of drones. And it is one of the most just beautiful visual captures of any real life event I've ever seen. It's a ton of drone footage. It's a lot of like maybe steady cam footage, but it's just this really tremendously beautiful recap of Burning Man this year and Burning Man I think it gets bigger and bigger every year and more and more technology arrives there every year so you know ten years ago was something that you'd hear about you wouldn't really get what it was and you couldn't really get much about it and now you know people are still grappling with like what the heck is this thing if you've never been which you know I for the record I've never been but

1:18:38Now the amount of media coming out of this where we're seeing people is just like incredible creations is super cool. So we're gonna drop the link in the show notes. It's Burning Man 2016 by Phil of drones on Vimeo. Go check it out. It's a super cool way to spend five minutes. Super cool. Mine, as a quick one this week, new book that came out recently that I read called Algorithms to Live by, by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths.

1:19:08This is a super fun book quick read. It's about fundamental computer science algorithms like searching and sorting and scheduling and optimal stopping that you learn about in your interest CS classes in college or in high school. But then about like what those algorithms are for like late people who aren't CS folks.

1:19:32But how to apply them to your life? And it's super cool. It's like, how do you sort your closet based on optimal sorting algorithms to how should you handle your email based on scheduling algorithms to all sorts of stuff? How should you decide when to when you found the right person to marry based on optimal stopping problems? It's very techy but written by from a humanities perspective. So I enjoyed it quite a bit.

1:20:00I think I've got one. I wish I had the time to read books now. I have two kids under three. So like those days are I assume they'll come back. You need an optimization algorithm. Right. Exactly. That's right. I need an optimization algorithm. But I'll give you one because I thought it was very interesting, which is Ross Dalfat wrote a column and op-ed column for the New York Times.

1:20:22talking about it's the headline was Clintons Samantha B problem and it talks about how late-night talk show hosts have sort of vehemently swung to the left in this particular election so now you know you have whereas even four years ago in sort of the letterman Leno late-night world Um, you know, these guys were lettermen, I guess, sort of tilted left. Leno was very middle of the road. But you just, other than maybe John Stewart occasionally and even John Stewart would sort of pad his criticism of of the right by saying, Hey, look, you know, I'm a comedian first. And, you know, this is the fake news show. You're no longer seeing that. You're seeing John Oliver and Samantha B and Seth Myers and Trevor Noah. And a lot of these sort of late night characters really swing hard to the left and basically, you know, call out Donald Trump and Donald Trump supporters of, you know, as being

1:21:30bigoted and racist and and and there's there's no sort of middle ground here and yet he says he juxtaposed this to the general public where you know there's still a huge percentage of this country that votes Republican and yet there's a big mismatch now between what you see sort of on late night TV and sort of your your maybe random average you know average picked American that maybe is an independent or a centrist or a Republican and there's no real outlet on the late night spectrum for this and you know what what he makes of this is sort of like we're basically he likens it to what we saw in the 60s and 70s where the culture really dramatically shifted leftward and yet we had

1:22:16Nixon and then, you know, in 1980, we had Reagan. And so there was this sort of mismatch between the culture and the politics. And so he's sort of hinting at, are we going to see this again if Trump is elected, where, you know, just the sort of your general entertainment culture is really out of whack with your general politics in this country. So interesting.

1:22:42read, I thought. I got a lot of criticism on Twitter, but I didn't think it was particularly deserved. Huh. Huh. Well, I definitely have to read it. Yeah. Me too. There's no matter what you think about this election, it has been a bananza for the media industry covering it. All right. Well, Alex, where can our listeners find you? From your podcast, your Twitter? Where do you want to send them? Yeah. So.

1:23:12The podcast is called Deal of the Week. It's available on iTunes, or you can find it on Bloomberg.com. And you can find me on Twitter at Sherman4949. I typically will tweet out the podcast. It's once a week. It's the episode's about 25, 30 minutes. So feel free to subscribe on iTunes. All right, listeners. Now is a great time to talk about one of our favorite companies, Statsig.

1:23:38Yes, there is a reason why the best product teams rely on Statsig, whether they are iterating on their core product features or shipping AI-powered experiences at scale. Yep. In the crazy speed of today's AI world, shipping fast is just table stakes now. It's basically trivial to build and deploy your app constantly.

1:23:59The real advantage is how quickly you learn what changes actually created value for customers, and how fast you can use that signal to guide what you shipped next. This is where Statsig comes in. It brings experimentation, feature flags, and product analytics into one unified system so teams can ship safely, test rigorously, and directly link what they changed to how users actually behaved. So if you want to make learning your competitive advantage, whether you're building new AI experiences, or just evolving your existing core product, go to statsig.com slash acquired to get started. And for our listeners, if you're listening to this episode and you have not yet subscribed, but would like to hear more, subscribe from your favorite podcast client from iTunes or overcast or any other client. And if you feel so inclined, we'd love a review on iTunes or tweeting about it. So thanks so much. We are at acquired FM on Twitter and we'll see you next time. Yeah, and most importantly, thank you to Alex. This is good.

1:24:55A huge treat for us, and a lot of fun. Well, we'd love to do it again sometime, cover more aspects, but thanks so much for taking your time to be on our show. My pleasure, love doing it.