Office Hours: The Ethics of Amazon vs. Meta, Naming a Next-Generation Product, and What to Do if Your Child Believes in Conspiracy Theories

Support for today's show comes from Deloitte. In the business world, it can be especially crucial to innovate. You can either build your own future or bet on someone else's. No one knows what tomorrow will bring, but we push forward and create enterprise anyway. That's why Deloitte's mission is to help engineer advantage for our clients by harnessing the latest innovations in technology while exploring the ideas and opportunities that can look beyond today. Transform what's next into what's now. See how you can engineer advantage with Deloitte at Deloitte.com slash us slash engineering advantage. Support for PropG comes from another podcast. It's called The Science of Scaling hosted by Mike Rebearer's, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School. Each week, Mark interviews some of the most successful sales leaders in tech, people including Kyle Parrish from Figma or Kevin Egan at Atlassian. They talk tactically about how to grow business because his Rebearer's will tell you whether a company is valued at $1,000,000,000 or $100,000,000. The failure rate is the same. The science of scaling wants to change that. Search for the science of scaling wherever you get your podcasts. That's The Science of Scaling. Welcome to the PropG pods office hours. This is the part of the show where we answer questions about business, big tech entrepreneurship and whatever else is on your mind. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice according to office hours at PropG Media.com. Again, that's office hours at PropG Media.com. First question. Hey Scott, this is Sean from Seattle. Love the podcast. Thank you so much for taking my question. I recently fielded offers from Amazon and Meta and got into a debate with friends around which was less ethically problematic. Using the contentious business practices and societal implications associated with both companies, do you truly believe there is a distinction in choosing one over the other for ethical reasons? Can someone really sleep better at night choosing to work at one big tech company over another? We'd love to hear your insight. Sean, this is the mother of all good problems. So let me be clear, both firms from an employee perspective are great firms. I would say probably a third of my kids, when I say my kids, my students would go to work for big tech and a 1.20% were going to Amazon and the people I know that went to Amazon described it as intense, unforgiving and very rewarding. Meta has a fantastic reputation in terms of how they treat their employees. They pay them really well, a lot of investments in human capital around the ethics. I think your first priority is to develop economic security for you and your family. I think big tech is good for the world. I think if we had a button we could press and make big tech vanish, we would not push that button. We are net gainers from big tech. The problem is with the word net and that is we're net gainers from pesticides. We're net gainers from fossil fuels, I still believe, but we choose to have emission standards in an EPA. I would argue at this point, at this point, Meta is probably a net negative. Whether it's teen, suicide, self-harm, self-cutting among girls, election misinformation, I mean, these guys really are a mandatious fox. Amazon might be a mandatious fox, but the implications of that are monopoly abused and small retailers go out of business and bigger retailers or great employers might have gone out of business faster than the otherwise would have, but they're not spreading conspiracy theory. They're not spreading anti-vax information and some of them might not be that the people are any less or more ethical. It's that they're just in different businesses. If you really got to the point where it came down to who was less bad or more ethical, I would say you'd probably choose Amazon just by virtue of the fact that they're in the business of e-commerce and cloud versus media. Having said that, I think most likely you should probably make the decision based on what's best for you personally. Do you want to live in Seattle? Do you want to live in the Bay Area? Where do you think you'll have senior level sponsorship? Do you have a better rapport or relationship, do you believe currently are that you'll develop with who you'll be reporting into? What does the career path look like at each organization? I find with decisions like this, you don't want to listen to a podcast or that is yours truly. You want to build a kitchen cabinet of people and say, okay, these are the offers. This is the opportunity. This is the division. What do you think? And then at the end of the day, you'll probably ignore all those decisions and just go with your God and make your original decision. So these are personal decisions. I would say the quote unquote ethical stuff, if you will, is a tiebreaker. Unless it's something that really weighs on you. Corporate America, these are platforms for making profits and folks in the media and people such as myself, I think play a role in holding them accountable and trying to urge our elected officials to put in place the regulations such that there's guardrails around these companies. At the end of the day, they are going to do whatever increases their profits. Full stop. That's just what they do. But anyways, like I said, let me end where I began. This is a great problem. Congratulations to you, offers from Amazon and meta, Jesus, Jesus, man. Good luck to you. That's fantastic. Question number two. He's got my co-founders and I started a company in a niche industry known as computational chemistry that accelerates pharmaceutical R&D. We've had some good success with our 1.0 and successive versions, both within this niche as well as expanding this niche to more users who traditionally don't use these types of tools. We're now about to launch a new version of our product and although the use cases will be the same, we were wondering, should we evolve our existing branding with a 2.0 tag showing progression or introduce a completely new branding in a sector that's both niche and on the cusp of broader reach. How should companies strike the balance between legacy and innovation in their product branding? What are the implications of these choices on market perception and accessibility? Love the show. Thanks so much. Okay. Let me get this. You are the co-founder of a company and computational chemistry that accelerates pharmaceutical R&D. So if you didn't leave your name, but if you call me and the terms on outrageous, I'll put 100 or 250 grand into this thing. I don't even know what you're doing in computational chemistry that accelerates pharmaceutical R&D. It just sounds like Benjamin's. That sounds like I'm hanging out with Benjamin. After you work your ass off for five years and sell the Pfizer or Novartis or Moderna or something. Anyways, these are again, we should brand today's office hours as the mother of all good problems. Okay. Generally speaking, I have a bias here and that is the vast majority. The vast majority of incremental revenues that a consumer company are from brand extensions, not new brands. What is a rookie move, a rookie move to practice unsafe corporate sex? What do I mean by that? A rookie move is to say, we need a new brand. Everybody wants to have kids, right? Everyone wants to have unsafe sex. And I get that. I get that. But here's the bottom line. Diet Coke sold about 20 or 30 X. What tab was going to sell or any new soft drink that Coca-Cola has come up with. Brand extensions are the way to go unless it's so different, right? But it really doesn't make sense and you need a new name. Then okay, Dayton Hudson is actually kind of a nice higher end department store similar to a Macy's. And they launch this big box retailer that's more focused on kind of Walmart low prices with a little bit of flair and a bulldog with a bulls eye on us. Okay, that's target. And we shouldn't call it Dayton Hudson's target. Old Navy is gap at 80% of the quality, 50% of the price. So it's gaps old Navy, then old Navy might gap and then old Navy on its own. I find in almost every situation until a brand gets to about a few hundred million, sometimes even a billion in sales or a company gets to that level. There's no reason to start having unsafe sex because every new brand is a mouth of feed. It has a new marketing department, new logo, new design, new pricing, new channel strategy. So unless it's a different, unless it's a distinct product with a different customer set or a different value proposition, I say go with 2.0 or maybe even, maybe not even changing the name just updating it. Anyway, thanks for the question. We have one quick break before our final question. Stay with us. Fox creative. This is advertiser content for Mercury. I just set out to help people. I wanted to build something that would make people's lives better. I'm Helen Mayer and I'm the founder of Otter. We help parents find reliable childcare on demand. Sometimes the spark for a startup catches you by surprise. Helen didn't think she would soon change the way we think about childcare when she walked into a doctor's office in 2018. I'd had cervical cancer three times. I was told I would never get to be a mom. I walked into the doctor's office thinking that I was maybe a couple weeks pregnant and walked out knowing that I was six and a half months pregnant with twins and it changed my life forever. My goal for Otter is to become the place where parents and caregivers come to find child care that works for them. When I incorporated Otter, I was looking for a banking solution that would be really easy to get onboarded onto. Mercury cuts through red tape, so driven entrepreneurs like Helen can simply just get started. My favorite thing about Mercury is how simple it is to use. Getting started was maybe one of the most delightful onboarding experiences I've had. Even how you can join a global community of over 100,000 startups on Mercury. The powerful and intuitive way for ambitious companies to bank by visiting Mercury.com. If you're thinking about using Mercury, just sign up. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group and Evolve Bank and Trust, members FDIC. Support for this episode comes from LinkedIn. It's hard to make great decisions when you have lousy information. It's even harder when you don't have any information at all. LinkedIn can help you overcome these challenges with technology that translates comprehensive high-quality data into dynamic insights so you can make better choices. They call it deep sales. Their next generation, LinkedIn Sales Navigator, is the first deep sales platform. With 950 million plus members, LinkedIn is able to access high-quality, first-party comprehensive data on companies and buyers. The LinkedIn Sales Navigator can provide insights and recommendations at a scale impossible for humans. Unleashing seller superpowers and increasing revenue. Right now, you can try LinkedIn Sales Navigator and get a 60-day free trial at LinkedIn.com-trial. It's LinkedIn.com-trial for a 60-day free trial. Let LinkedIn Sales Navigator help you sell like a superstar today. Welcome back, question number three. Hi, Scott. My name's Jeannie, and I am a middle-aged marketer and mother here in the Boston area. Specifically, my question is about my own child, who is a 21-year-old male who is impacted, let's say, quite negatively from the isolation resulting from the lockdowns for COVID-19, and has found his way back to college after doing some other work. He has also found his way to a lot of conspiracy theories, and really is diving into those deeply. Part of that is because of his underdeveloped frontal lobe and still trying to seek answers and trying to figure things out. My question to you is, how do I help him see things rationally and guide him as to what these conspiracy theories are and why they're attractive and maybe why they're wrong and how to assess things from an analytical and perspective of logic. Anyway, I'm rambling. Thank you so much. Keep up the good work. Gene from the Boston area. I just did something for the first time, and that is I paused the show here so I could go do a bit of research. I think when you're talking about your son and conspiracy theories and parenting around this, I think one, I think this is so important and so sensitive and two, I have so little domain expertise here that I wanted to do just a bit of research before spouting off here, and I went to the anti-defamation leagues site and looked up some information on conspiracy theories. So what are conspiracy theories? They explain various events caused by powerful people, usually that they're being manipulated by powerful people behind the scenes, and they reject the established and accepted narratives. Why are they dangerous? They undermine trust and institutions, they consult division, more polarization, they demonize marginalized groups, and they can also be used to justify violence and persecution of people. And why do we get drawn into conspiracy theories? What are feeling of belonging? Communities develop online, they've run rampant because conspiracy. Nothing loves a conspiracy theory like the algorithm from meta because they're compelling, they're novel. Lies and conspiracy are interesting stories. The truth is usually a little bit more boring, right? The fact that Bill Gates might be implanting something in you, be the vaccine, such that you can track your every movement, that's kind of an interesting sci-fi story. Should they be stamped out? No, the dissenters' voice is important. The problem is, is that the dissenters' voice or the conspiracy theorist gets more sunlight and attention than they would organically because metages love as a conspiracy theory and will start sending out this content and elevating it. And the more times you see something, the more likely you are to believe that there's more veracity there or that it's less crazy. So people get drawn into these things for the need of belonging and I need to feel good about themselves. They include kind of a sense of superiority that I'm in the know and what to do as a parent. So according to the Anti-Defamation League, it's good to just understand the conspiracy theories and understand their origins. Do not be dismissive of your son's belief in these conspiracy theories. And what I have found and I think this is true and you can relate to this gene as a parent is the moment you, as the mom, try and talk, your son out of something they get entrenched in that belief. You're supposed to encourage critical thinking by asking open-ended questions like, why do you think the government would want to, you know, inject something that alters people's DNA? I think Democrats would want to have a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza shop. Like, you know, just kind of ask questions or what do you think is going on here and try not to be judgmental. Obviously prioritize the person's health, safety and well-being and provide help if needed. And do not cut the person out of your life. Like I cannot, I cannot have a son of my life that believes, you know, in QAnna or whatever it might be. That doesn't help either. I think it's sort of accepting them. I find with stuff like this, when I'm interviewing someone that just says what I think I was just absolute falsehoods, I try and give them the benefit of the doubt and just keep asking them questions and let them arrive, hopefully, at their own conclusions. But I just want to say, Jean, I can't imagine how upsetting this is. Something that really rattles me and it's a huge disappointment, even though I know why it's happening. My boys don't come to me for advice. I get, I'm not exaggerating. I get hundreds, sometimes thousands of people coming to me for advice like you are about raising kids. I get a ton of young men from the ages of like literally eight to 48, emailing me and texting me and asking me for advice. But my 13 year old still does kind of seek my advice mostly around business, but quite frankly, my 16 year old just isn't interested in what I think. I think some of this is ego speaking, but it's really hurtful to me. It upsets me that he doesn't come to me and want to know what I think about stuff or where I asked for my advice or help on anything. And what I've realized is that, and I trust you realize this, is that it's important for kids to strike out on their own and separate from the pack, if you will, and separate from the parents. And they literally have a hormone and an instinct that says, I need to reject some of the basic principles of my parents and her bell such that I develop the skills to go on my own. And you know, a more thoughtful and evolved father would say it's important that I embrace or let my son lean into his separation, but I got to be honest, it's really upsetting to me. And I got to imagine also it's got to be really upsetting for you to have your son, you know, and my guess is my most kids is probably a good kid sort of embraced this stuff. I find that Big Tech is responsible for a lot of it. And I don't think there's a quick fix here, and I think there's more of it. So again, I just want to express empathy that I think this must be very upsetting to, I think you have to continue to embrace your son, ask questions, try and understand why he thinks this. Obviously, you voice your viewpoint, but engage with him as opposed to shame him and kind of hope for the best here. And to also understand that some of this is just a healthy, natural pulling away. So I want to send you to adl.org slash conspiracy dash theories. But again, Gene, let me just end where I started. I'm sorry. I think this has got to hurt. And to the fact that you're obviously a very loving mother and that you're engaged in your son's life just means that this and other problems have a better chance of working out because your son has something that I find is the key to success. And that is that he has someone irrationally passionate about his well-being. Thanks for the call. Thanks for the question. That's all for this episode. If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehoursaproptumedia.com. Again, that's officehoursaproptumedia.com. This episode is produced by Caroline Shagrin. Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to The Property Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network. We will catch you on Saturday for no mercy no malice as read by George John and on Monday with our weekly market show. The era of automotive advances with the all-electric pole star two. Now with faster charging, improved EPA estimated range of up to 320 miles and advanced safety technology, experience awe-inspiring performance combined with luxury design as standard. The time is now, the all-electric pole star two. Book a test drive in order today at polestar.com. That connected to a community of music lovers with AMP, Amazon's live audio app. With access to over 100 million songs you can curate and share live playlists, highlighting what you think is the next big thing in music. Share your favorite tracks with other AMP users on your own live audio show and join the discussion in real time through live chat or call-in because on AMP, everyone has a voice. You can even reach new audiences and get paid via the creator fund. Flex your music taste. And find your music community on AMP. Download AMP on iOS in the App Store or for Android in the Google Play Store, available in the US only.