How The Affirmative Action Ruling Changes Corporate America

Hello and welcome to Slate Money, your guide to the business and finance news of the week I'm Felix Sam and I'm here with Emily Peck, both of us work for Axios. We are joined with the New York Timesary own, well it's not really, it's just one of her many fiddles, Elizabeth Spires. Hello. We are going to talk about the big Supreme Court case that was decided this week, or at least one of them, the one about affirmative action, what it means for corporations, but honestly the heart of this show is about marketing. We're going to talk about influencer marketing, she in and Bud Light, we're going to talk about mega marketing at Mattel with the Barbie movie, and we're going to talk about whether we're going to watch Barbie and Offenheimer on the same day and if so, which one comes first. That is all coming up, we have a Slate Plus segment on Vanna White, who is earning $3 million a year and wants more. So we'll talk about that, it's all coming up on Slate Money. Hey everybody, it's Tim Heidecker, you know me, Tim and Eric Bridesmaid's and Fantastic Four. I'd like to personally invite you to listen to Office Hours Live with me and my co-hosts DJ Doug Pound. Hello. And Vic Berger. Howdy. Every week we bring you last fun games and lots of other surprises, it's live, we take your Zoom calls, we love having fun, excuse me. Vic said something. He's on music. I like having fun. I like to laugh. I like to meet people who can make me laugh. Please subscribe. Slate Money is sponsored this week by Progressive. Progressive is one of those places that believes in multitasking. You know what I'm talking about because you're driving right now or you're cleaning or you're exercising or you're probably doing something more than just listening to me read this ad. But what if I told you that instead of just driving or cleaning or exercising, you could be saving money. You could be saving nearly $700 by switching their current trends to Progressive. Drivers who save by switching save nearly $700 on average and auto customers qualify for an average of seven discounts. Multitask right now quote today at Progressive.com, Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates, national average 12 month savings of $698 by new customer surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2021 and May 2022. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. So yeah, let's start with this affirmative action ruling from the Supreme Court. And I was thinking this being the corporate arm of the Slate podcast empire that we could concentrate on what this means for business. I think it's pretty clear what it means for selective universities. But I think there are implications and I think Emily, you agree with me on this one that it could affect not only admissions to universities but also corporate hiring decisions. Yes, exactly. I think maybe there's two different kinds of impacts for business real world purposes. First would be the most prestigious schools would be graduating fewer people of color, which would mean fewer in the pipeline just naturally. And that would have all kinds of downstream consequences. One of the justices brought up a really big one, which would be in medicine, which already has very few black doctors and there's all kinds of research and studies that show black doctors for black children, black babies, and mothers having a black doctor can make a life or death difference. Or just in regular business hiring, you're going to hire fewer people of color because they're not coming out of the same university pipeline as usual. There's a second business consequence that's more murky at this point. And that is what happens to corporate diversity, hiring programs, and initiatives. And I think that's a little more unclear. And we should probably talk about that. So, yeah, in terms of the first one, I think number one, you're absolutely right. There are a lot of companies who love the whole credentialism system and think that if you graduate from Harvard, then if so factor, you're highly desirable potential employee. I have been arguing against this for as long as I can remember. And if this goes a little way, if this helps corporate DEI departments to help persuade HR departments that they should not just be looking at selective universities and they should be looking at the full range of colleges or maybe even people who haven't gone to college at all when they make hiring decisions, that would be amazing. But you're right that certainly among the, you know, elite, or the companies who like to think of themselves as hiring only the elite, then this is bad news. But you're right that the bigger broader question is like, there's something in the water now. A woman who was a manager at Starbucks just got a 25 million dollar jury award after she got fired and claimed that it was because she was white. And the actual award was $600,000. And then there was an extra 25 million of punitive damages. And clearly that like juries feel, or these some juries feel much the same way that the Supreme Court does about this. There's definitely a feeling that there is, you know, anti-white sentiment in work corporate America. And companies are going to be worried about getting taken to court. And potentially losing even if they appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Yeah, I think, you know, one of the big problems with this is that it's murky in terms of how eliminating race-based consideration might translate into a corporate environment because a lot of DI initiatives are not necessarily or more, you know, informal. It's not just a matter of reaching quotas. And the conservative talking point about affirmative action is that it's just a matter of saying we're going to have this many hires that check a diversity box. And they're not really clear about what the criteria are. So I mean, that's that, but that wasn't the case in this case, right? It wasn't that the university's had any kind of quota. And yet they were still not allowed to take race into account. Yeah, but I'm pushing back on your point that, you know, there's something in the water and that people don't like wokeness in these scenarios because affirmative action has majority of support from, you know, most Americans. And that's most Americans, not just most liberal Democrats. Is that true? I mean, most of what I've been reading says that the polling shows that Americans don't support race-based college admissions. The polling. We saw that in California. I see. And when it's specifically, when you talk about affirmative action in colleges, there's majority support for that. I think, you know, it's part of it as poll design and how you ask a question. You're certainly a way that you can ask a question about racial considerations and hiring or college admissions that frames it a little bit differently and doesn't specifically talk about affirmative action. But affirmative action as a policy does enjoy majority support from Americans. But in any case, this is not a question of, this is not a question of, like, democracy. This is a question of the judicial system. And there's definitely, as we've mentioned many times on this show in the past, this, like, increasing anti-work sentiment, even if it's a minority sentiment. But people are becoming more aggressive and they're becoming more aggressive about taking companies to court. And it is almost certain, I think, that the louder a company proclaims the strength of its commitment to DEI principles, the more likely it is that they're going to wind up getting taken to court by someone claiming that this is illegal or that they were discriminated against. And no one wants to have that court fight, whether or not they're going to win. And increasingly, it looks like they could even lose. Yeah, I think this decision is really bad for a corporate diversity initiatives. First, to pull on the string of what Felix said, I mean, companies are conservative. They're afraid of cats. They're not going to want to go out on a limb for something like this. And already there's been backlash to some of the diversity initiatives pushed forward after George Floyd's murder in 2020. And the Supreme Court obviously didn't talk about corporate diversity initiatives. But in his majority opinion, Roberts did say that diversity, I'm not going to have the wording right, but he basically said it was kind of like a squishy goal that was hard to prove. So you could kind of see the seeds of something planted there. You know, if you're a company and diversity is one of your goals, if the Supreme Court just ruled that diversity is like a squishy goal that's hard to to show in the data, you could see where that might lead. Now, to be fair, like the EEOC came out with a statement yesterday, that's the agency that enforces civil rights laws for employers. And they came out and they said the Supreme Court's decision doesn't have anything to do with employers and diversity initiatives are fine and totally legal. So I don't want to like get out ahead on my skis. I just think this is part of like a big backlash that's brewing obviously. And part of it's going to hit corporate America. And corporate America is not this big, strong bastion of civil rights. Like they'll fold. Like look what Budweiser just did. They fold it, you know what I mean? So that's what I'm worried about. We're going to talk a little bit about Budweiser later on in this show. But one of the interesting twists here is that there is this broad expectation slash understanding that college admissions should be in some sense fair or meritocratic or somewhere between the two. And I don't think that people really have that expectation for corporate hiring. That, you know, that hiring decisions are always, they always feel so weirdly random and idiosyncratic. That, you know, possibly you could make an argument if you're just, if you have like a complete hiring machine situation going on, like, you know, if you're hiring from Amazon warehouses or something like that, you're hiring people by the thousands. But a lot of corporate hiring really is just I'm hiring one individual person for one individual job. And, you know, they need to fit into this specific team and work with these specific people. And I think that it's that the other, the flip side of what we just saw from the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court and we've seen this from both democratic nominated judges and Republican nominated judges has become much more corporate friendly over recent decades. And if corporations just come out and say, look, we can hire whoever we want. That's up to us. That's our prerogative. I think that's a conservative argument that could actually win. Well, but with who? I mean, there's, I guess, you know, when you take into consideration that most hiring managers are, you know, they skew white and male and a lot of corporations, maybe that's true. But, you know, when we're talking about equity initiatives and race-based considerations, specifically, which is what the Supreme Court ruling is about, you know, those sort of things, I agree with Emily that it could get a little bit squishy in terms of how you define that. But we have a lot of data that says that race comes into hiring considerations, even if even in the absence of DI initiatives. And one good example of this, yeah. I mean, that's why DEI initiatives exist, right? I mean, I don't think, yeah, that's the whole point. And the question is, do corporations have the prerogative to hire whoever they want and to do so, you know, with written down DEI initiatives? I think the big risk here, just to be clear, is that DEI initiatives are going to become hidden and secret rather than out and proud. And corporations aren't going to stop doing them so much as they're going to stop talking about them. And if you stop talking about them, that itself is, you know, bad for DEI broadly, because the more that we talk about it and the more that we embrace it, the more normalized and a good thing that people understand it to be. And I think that the risk here is the corporation, it's not so much that they're just going to stop doing them, but they're going to say, like, we just don't want to give a bunch of red meat to the kind of people who are inclined to sue us for this kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, it's too early to say obviously what happens in corporate America because of this decision, but this is not a good decision for diversity and hiring. And I think there are plenty of companies that would probably like to toss out the whole notion of diversity and hiring, like Felix, you're saying they'll take it on the down low or something, they'll do it quietly, but I think a lot of companies will take this as an opportunity to just do less. Because there was a lot of dissatisfaction, I think, with the increase in efforts around diversity post-George Floyd. You know, you hear a little whispers here and there, even in media, which has made a really, really strong effort to hire a lot of people who are different races. So I just think this is like a great day for the racists. Yeah, I think what it may do is give smaller employees who don't really understand EOC protections in the first place or have some general idea of what they're supposed to do and excuse to discriminate and violate EOC protections because they think it's the same thing. This episode is brought to you by SAP. Welcome to the window, the window of opportunity. When your next move can either make your business famous or obsolete. So you need to be ready. Be handling good surprises and bad ones ready. Be opening a Portland, Houston, and Providence location on the same day. Ready. Be stock options plus paid family leave. Ready. SAP has been there and can help you be ready for anything that happens next because it will. Be ready with SAP. Reboot your credit card with Apple card. The credit card created by Apple. It gives you unlimited daily cashback that you can automatically deposit at 4.15% annual percentage yield when you open a high yield savings account. And savings is built right into the wallet app so it's easy to monitor your progress. Apply for Apple card now in the wallet app on iPhone and start growing your daily cash with savings today. Apple card subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Apple card owners. Subject to eligibility requirements. Savings accounts provided by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. Member FDIC. Terms apply. Hey, how are you? I'm fine. I'm fine. How long? Two weeks. Come on. You think it's faster now? Yes, hopefully. You also become a job in your industry. Then you come to the Lufthansa Group. Over 50 exp. from IT to the cockpit. Fly big on the Lufthansa Group from Korea. Okay, I need to ask you to Emily on the scale of 1 to 10. How caught up in Barbie further are you and will you be watching the movie? I'm so excited for the movie. I'm unabashedly captured by Mattel's evil genius marketing campaign. From the moment I saw the Barbie preview, which I hope Patrick can play a clip from, where she says, Hi, Barbie. Hi, Barbie. Hi, Barbie. Hi, Barbie. Hi, Barbie. Hi, Barbie. I'm just like so excited for this movie. I don't know quite, a can't quite articulate it. Maybe we can talk about it. Maybe we can dig in to why I'm so excited, but I have a daughter who is 12. She is also excited. We're both going. I was just thinking today. Maybe I'll wear pink to the movie. I don't know. I don't usually dress up for movies. It's not my thing. But I love the idea of going on opening weekend and wearing pink. As you know, I have a pink suit, so maybe I will do that. Yes, everyone do it. It will brighten our days from these dark, these dark times. Elizabeth, are you with us on this one? Yeah, I'm shamelessly bought into anything that taps into my Jinx nostalgia for anything I grew up with, but particularly whenever it has a thick layer of irony on top of it, which this film absolutely does. I'm a complete sucker for that kind of thing. I don't have a pink outfit to wear, but... You don't have a pink outfit, it's true. I rarely see you wearing pink. Then again, I rarely see Emily wearing pink either. We all have to share some photographs, but the thing which I really love about this whole marketing onslaught from a just capitalism perspective is the way in which Mattel not only got paid somewhere between 25 million and 50 million just for allowing the movie studio to make the movie in the first place. But then they turned the movie into a just part of a much broader ad campaign for Barbie, the doll, the brand, the icon, which has roped in every single conceivable brand you can think of. There's a Barbie Xbox, there's a Barbie pool flip. There's Barbie everything right now and they're also pink and they're also delicious and they're also desirable. In a way, for the first time, people like me who don't particularly like playing with dolls can go out and excitedly buy Barbie product and be into it. This is so much bigger than the movie and the movie, if anything, is just an ad for the product and an ad for the brand. The idea that this is one of those ads that instead of paying for it, you get paid for it and you get paid a lot of money for someone else to do an ad for you just blows my mind. It's amazing. Yeah, it's like a marketing feat unrivaled, unparalleled. If you go and look at all the trade magazines and websites that cover marketing and ads, they're all just like Mattel and its genius. How did Mattel pull off this genius move and they go back to 2018 when Barbie was, no, 2015, I think, when Barbie was declared dead and had the lowest sales in 25 years and the millennials didn't like Barbie anymore. She was sexist. Everyone hated her and then the company embarked on this big turnaround plan for Barbie, which is really coming, really culminating right now with this insane marketing campaign with the life-size Barbie Dreamhouse, the Barbie handbags from Balmain, that Barbie cardigans and hot topic, there's like Barbie toothbrush, there's Barbie ice cream and Barbie frozen yogurt and it's really about marketing the toy, not just marketing the toy at kids anymore, but marketing them at us, at the three of us. We're totally bought in. It's like getting adults to come in and it's really it's really working. Plus in 2023, even us Gen Xers were not turned off by commercialism anymore. We're like, okay with it now somehow. I think we're okay with it if it seems vaguely entertaining. And I think part of the reason why the Barbie stuff is working a little bit is that it's become a trend with brands to do collaborations between wildly disparate brands and products. The Marvel movie comes out and you see X-Men, Gillette Razer, it's like, well, why? But it also, I think you get both of the brands get a little bit of lift from it and in the case of the Barbie stuff, I think this has been an opportunity for a lot of CMOs who need to check a creativity box to just put crazy ideas out there and get them funded. So some of it I think is just about incentives and advertising to do really high concept stuff in these crazy collaborations because they do get a lot of buzz. I mean, the Airbnb Barbie Dreamhouse has been covered so many times already. And that seems like an expensive thing to do. But when you look at all the earned media, it gets it makes total sense. And just like the think pieces on Barbie too, like the New York Times last in last weekend's paper, they had a huge spread on the Barbie Dreamhouse and they took it really seriously. They went back to the first Dreamhouse and they were like at the time, the first Dreamhouse launched. Women couldn't even get mortgages. And they sort of laid out the history of women buying houses with the Barbie Dreamhouse and made it this very feminist thing where the first Dreamhouse had no kitchen, big deal, because little girls here to four had been given doll houses with kitchens because that's where they'd be working in the future kind of a thing. And just the proliferation of think pieces, the earned media, it's really. But it's a really successful rebranding though too. When you consider the 2015 criticism, the Barbie was very retro in a bad way and bad model for young girls. Now the whole narrative is that actually Barbie is a feminist icon and they were able to do that with just the run-up to a movie product. That's an incredible control change. I haven't quite, I haven't quite gone so far as to buy into the idea that Barbie is a feminist icon. I do think you haven't seen from your program or Barbie. I do think that hiring Greta Gowick to write the movie was a stroke of genius because she has that ability to be kind of third wave about these things and be a little bit beyond reproach while also not being remotely strident or on message about. I haven't seen any reviews. I don't know if anyone has really seen the movie yet, but I'm sure it doesn't have some deeply divisive message. It's going to be a very fun, fluffy summer movie and it's going to be enjoyed as such and that's awesome. We really need this. We need Barbie right now. So I just think it's bringing darkness and Barbie is bringing light. Yeah, I just need to ask you, Emily, are you going to do the double bill of Barbie and Oppenheimer? And if so, which one are you going to see first? Our producer Patrick asked me about this and I'm embarrassed to say I didn't even know at all anything about this Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer comes out the same day. The Barbie movie comes out and it's some like big prestige bomber movie about the guy who invented the nuclear bomb and I guess I will not be seeing it. There are internet memes now of Oppenheimer Barbie crossovers that people are making. There is one with a big pink cloud and it was just a shot from some still. Barbie and Heimler. I'm totally going to see Oppenheimer though and I'll see it probably before the Barbie movie. What on the same day? On the same day. Yeah, I think that's the sequence. You see Oppenheimer first and then you see Barbie and you go out and get it and nice uplifting note. Exactly. So Oppenheimer then Barbie. Yeah. Then cocked it. Yeah. Oppenheimer, Barbie, perfect. Pink Martinez. Cosmopolitan. That's what they're called. They're probably Barbie branded cocktails out there. I'm sure there are. No, it's been a few years since I was unabashedly drinking cosmos and I feel like I should go back to those days. Let's talk about the other end of the marketing spectrum because marketing fail while the ultra expensive ultra professional ultra high dollar marketing push by Mattel around Barbie has been a clear success. We have begun to see the way in which influencer marketing which was the new hotness for the past few years can backfire massively. You have these much lower budget campaigns that are greenlit much lower down the org chart that don't have full corporate buy-in necessarily and that like suddenly go viral for all the wrong reasons and the one in the news right now is she in the Chinese fast fashion company that may or may not be going public but it's certainly incredibly successful and has been kind of low key battling pretty predictable narratives which around all fast fashion companies about how it's closed and made in sweatshop conditions and some bright spark as she in decided that the way they were going to battle this narrative was to fly a bunch of influences that no one ever had ever heard of over the China show them the factories and get them to do TikTok saying I saw these factories and everyone there seemed very happy which they did and then everyone just said oh my god this is ludicrous and pounced on them and then by and then I suppose I can make out very few people sort of organically saw those original influence of videos but everyone saw the backlash videos and the backlash think pieces and how you know it wasn't working and the thing that made me think of was and you know we'd mentioned this earlier the the Bud Light campaign with Dylan Mulvaney which again was just like they sent this trans influencer like a kind of Bud Light with her based on it and then suddenly it created billions of dollars of earned media in the wrong direction that everyone got really angry about and is this the first indication that influencer marketing campaigns are possibly much more volatile and much more dangerous than people had really realized I think if you if yeah I've done some work with influencer agencies and they're always a little bit volatile because what you're paying for is access to that influencer is very specific audience who is going to respond to that single person in a way that you can't entirely control and you know for influencers who have a ton of followers you know in the millions they get really strict creative briefs about what they can and can't do and sometimes things are very scripted in this case it seems like they weren't but the influencers were so excited to get a trip you know they were not clearly people who were used to getting comped those sort of things and so they I don't even think they had to push them to be effusive about you know what was happening in the factories I think they did it organically because they felt like they were being treated really well and that's probably part of where it backfired you know they they should understand that they're they're too over the top in terms of defending the companies labor practices that people are going to be skeptical about that and that that is not going to go the way that they wanted it to you're saying that she should understand that or the influencer should well she ends up in a company that they should understand enough about influencer marketing to know that when influencers push something too hard or they're too over the top about it their audiences generally don't like it because people generally don't like to be felt like they're they're being propagandized to or you know products are being shoved down their throat my general take on this is that that's a risk but it's not necessarily what happened in these cases that you know as I say these were relatively small scale influences and for all we know their audiences were fine with it and they went oh okay that's interesting and moved on with their lives and thought that she in was probably fine but then what happened is that a few of people a few people who like weren't in the audience you know found these videos and started amplifying them to a whole new you know anti-corporateist audience that this is that this is the this is the risk like if Dylan Mulvaney's Bud Light video had stayed within her fan community that would have been all for the good they all went horribly sideways when it kind jumped over to the anti-work community and then you know everything went really bad and I think that's the risk here is not so much that the audience of these influences is going to take things the wrong way but more that the videos will reach people who aren't in the audience of the influences and then things become really really unpredictable yes and I think that the she-in marketing idea was just bad like right I mean it's obvious propaganda this company has been accused of forcing people to work like 18 hours a day for very very very little money and also been accused of using you know forced labor and so the idea that they could sort of whitewash all that by taking six influencers and not even the highest profile influencers and showing them one very cleaned up you know factory in China and then making it seem like everything's fine that's just that's a bad idea right there like if I had if they'd asked me I would have told them it was a bad idea and the idea that maybe you should go away appreciate in marketing department Emily and and and and the other thing is you know the idea that you can have an influencer just talk to their audience on a public facing platform and it's not going to go to other audiences I think they should also know better I mean TikTok is is public and these things go viral the goal of this kind of marketing for things to go viral not just to target a particular audience but like you'd hope that more people would see it right so hope that more people would see it I think the it just went viral in the wrong direction for them right right I'm saying like you can't like Felix was saying you know the problem is when this goes outside the target audience but like that's part of the goal so if the goal the goal is problematic right so I think I think that's exactly it that that the people are realizing now we're realizing and maybe we should have known this all along that micro targeting is is never going to be something you can control right like if you're trying to reach a small group of you know fans of Dylan Mulvaney that's all well and good but inevitably you know if you're putting that on the public platform and much larger group of people are going to see it and this is why historically marketing messages have always been very very carefully controlled and where it takes you know 18 different layers of approval before any kind of marketing message goes out from anyone and why you know it's so difficult to get feeling of honesty and humanity out of any brands because you know because intuitively brands have understood this that everything that comes out with their name on it is part of their marketing and they need to be very careful about making sure that it's in line with exactly what they want the brand to be and so yeah it's it's not easy to send one message to one group of people and another message to another group of people and half them happily go exist I think they also just may have assumed that this would not be yet they might have not anticipated the blowback because she and is such a popular brand on TikTok and I doubt very seriously that they've seen any sales drops because if you are familiar with the brand and you're the kind of influencer who's been promoting she and products you're also aware of your labor practices I mean this is not a big secret I think you're just the kind of person who doesn't really care or you're not going to boycott the brand because of it so I think in terms of their actual customers I would be surprised to this move the needle at all yeah but just stick with the unboxings people stick with like sending the influencers free shit and getting them to like rave about how amazing it is that's that's a lot more reliable that's how she and became popular they sent clothes to influencers who posted about it on TikTok and and went viral and then everyone was shopping at she in and yeah totally Elizabeth I don't think this is unlike Budweiser also in that it's not going to affect sales in any way I think we should have a numbers round Elizabeth do you have a number my number is 22 and that's a million and there are three people who've been indicted for gaining illegal profits and trading ahead of the proposed merger of Trump social media company into a spec called digital world acquisition court and every time I read an insider trading story like this I'm just baffled that anybody thinks that they can get away with it it's because these things are so straightforward um did they buy short dated out of the money call options no because that's always the way to be guaranteed you're going to get caught no they they left a paper and electronic trail where they were talking about the merger ahead of the IPO. Tisk, Tisk, Tisk. At least someone made money off of Trump's social media site is that the wrong take? Well if they don't they don't have the deal isn't done yet so if it's not done by September 8th they have to liquidate the 300% or so a million that they raised uh sad. Well but at that point this Trump go back to Twitter. That's why I have the take because I don't I want Trump to just stay on truth social I didn't want him to come back to Twitter though I'm almost done with Twitter to be honest. Yes I'm here um Emily. Okay get ready. I'm ready. My number is four that's a number of words in the sentence livi rised up baby gronk that I did not understand. I don't know that's a five that's a five word sentence. No no no listen again four is the number of words in the sense I did not understand I understand a word up but I did not understand livi rised or baby gronk but like really really if baby gronk is one thing then rised up is one thing really it's it's like a three word sentence in that sense in that case. Okay well should I should I you should you should keep it again. I know I feel like we should talk about this sentence because it's an important sentence. Yes so livi rised up baby gronk that is something Felix brought up last week I don't even remember exactly why he brought it up but I was like I don't even know what that means and then I thought about it and I was like I shouldn't be so close minded and then our producer who I've mentioned three times already in the show sent me a link so he sent me a link called livi rising up baby gronk explained which I read and now I understand what all the words mean and I can explain it to you the audience if you like do you want to know wait wait I mean I know what it means I think I feel like the audience deserves an explanation a lot of people don't we're we're terminally online people so so but this is this is the question before before we explain what livi rised up baby gronk means why would anyone need to know this because you branched it on slight money and I needed to know what it meant okay if because I want to be in the conversation if Emily if Emily felt the need to know what it meant then maybe one of you guys out there also feels the need to know what it meant so here with Emily's explanation of what it meant here goes okay livi Olivia done 20-year-old gymnast at LSU she has millions of followers and relevant top earning female athlete in NIL deals which we talked about last week rised is genwise slang derived from ris which is like charisma or flirting so if you're like risen someone up you're kind of like flirting with them if you have ris you have charisma you know what I mean baby gronk is a 12-year-old with 312,000 followers on instagram and his real name is madden san Miguel okay he met with livi and there was a video of it and in the video it's really sweet like she is obviously very charismatic she has ris it's clear to me and she says hi to him and she said you should come to LSU someday or whatever and he posted a youtube youtube video of it where which he titled livi done knows i got riz which now all the audience listening understands what that means none of this really mattered very much until gentleman who goes by the name hoopify on tiktok posted kind of like a joke tiktok about baby gronk's visit to LSU and he said you know livi rised up baby gronk and then that is my understanding went viral and that's when it became a subject of conversation oh and ps gronk i don't know philix knows this short for rob gronk haski who played on the patriots with tom brady and they went to super bowl a bunch of times and they he is called gronk so that is it and apparently he is a little bit fed up with all of this baby gronk thing and has threatened nasty grams to baby gronk or least baby gronk's dad which i feel like don't do that no these are children doing fun things and now i know what riz means and i also spent time on a Wikipedia page learning about gen why slang so i might be using more of it so i'm sorry to everyone who has to hear me do that going forward um i i thank you for doing that Emily and i will be raising you up all week for doing that i can't follow that but somehow i have to uh my number is 64 billion which is the number of dollars by which the bureau of economic analysis apparently got the gdp number wrong when they came out with first quarter gdp in april um at the end of april the advanced gdp estimate for the first quarter came out um they said that it had grown 1.1 percent this week there was the third estimate for first quarter gdp and they said 1.1 percent what were we thinking no in fact first quarter gdp grew by 2 percent and the difference between the two in terms of gdp is 64 billion dollars which gives you an idea of the magnitude by which economic statistics you know have error bars it's funny because you know how like people in people are saying lately that economic statistics are made up or something um but if they were made up they wouldn't keep getting revised like that there's no revisions when you're making up numbers you just stick with them everybody knows that and if you did what if you were making the rap you suddenly wouldn't have huge revisions where you doubled the gdp number from one to the next because that yeah come on people get your conspiracy theory straight although i guess if you wanted people to think you weren't making it up you would do it like this ooh ooh so i don't even know what to think there's a lot of red string on the wall i think that's it for us this week unless you want to know about um we had an awesome sleepless segment lined up and i've already forgotten what it was what was it Emily um well would you like to buy a bow banner white it was vanna white vanna white yes because this is this is a great pop culture episode we have livy we have baby grunt we have barbie and in sleepless we have vanna white so make sure you're a sleepless listener listen to us talking about vanna white who according to some people might be underpaid and otherwise thanks for listening thanks for writing in on sleight money at sleight.com thanks to patrick fort for giving Emily lots of material this week and we will be back next week with more sleight money