Technology
The Trouble with Tech Companies (and Their Strategies)
In this episode of HBR IdeaCast, Cory Doctorow discusses the concept of 'inshitification,' which describes the gradual decline of tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter. He explores how th...
The Trouble with Tech Companies (and Their Strategies)
Technology •
0:00 / 0:00
Interactive Transcript
spk_0
I'm Audignations.
spk_0
I'm Allison Beard and this is the HBR IdeaCast.
spk_0
So Allison, you know, there are times when someone puts their finger on something that
spk_0
we sense and that we experience, but we don't yet have a word for.
spk_0
Such as?
spk_0
Well, Clay Chris had said that with disruption, right?
spk_0
The term is overused now to refer to almost any business challenge, but his definition
spk_0
was very precise.
spk_0
When newcomers start at the bottom of the market, win customers there and innovate up the
spk_0
value chain to displace the incumbent, okay?
spk_0
So now Cory Doctreau, a well-known tech writer, has put his finger on another phenomenon
spk_0
that did not have a name.
spk_0
And that is the gradual evolution.
spk_0
He would say deterioration of tech platforms, so Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and so on.
spk_0
We fall in love with them, but they evolve into something we fall out of love with, but
spk_0
we're kind of stuck in their world.
spk_0
And he calls that the inshitification of these services.
spk_0
Okay, this is not a family-friendly term, but it was picked as the word of the year by
spk_0
a couple of big dictionaries.
spk_0
Yeah, that is definitely not a word that I am very comfortable saying, even though I
spk_0
can generally swear with the best of them.
spk_0
But I do know exactly what you're talking about.
spk_0
And I think it happens in lots of areas.
spk_0
You know, there's a product or service or platform as you say that starts really great
spk_0
and then gets worse over time because the organization, whether it's public or private,
spk_0
becomes less focused and complacent.
spk_0
In a perfect world, the market would punish them for that.
spk_0
You know, there would be clays disruptors and consumers or business clients could take
spk_0
their money elsewhere.
spk_0
But I guess if they're dominant in their corner of the industry or their geography, that
spk_0
sometimes not feasible.
spk_0
So I'd love to know if there's a solution.
spk_0
So that's what we're talking about.
spk_0
So my guess this week is Cory Doctoro, journalist, writer, keen observer of the contemporary
spk_0
tech world and author of the new book, inshitification, why everything suddenly got worse and what
spk_0
to do about it.
spk_0
So here's our conversation.
spk_0
I've worked for a digital rights group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
spk_0
defends digital rights online.
spk_0
And I've been working for them for 24 years, all my adult life.
spk_0
And I have tried many ways of engaging people with these very abstract, techno, social,
spk_0
political critiques of how our platforms are regulated and how they operate.
spk_0
It turns out that swearing was the secret that cracked the knot, right?
spk_0
That giving people a minor license to a bit of profanity makes them very happy and let's
spk_0
them go out and do it.
spk_0
So inshitification at its crux is a description of how platforms decay, backed by theory of
spk_0
why they decay.
spk_0
Platforms are first good to their end users.
spk_0
They lure those end users in.
spk_0
They find a locus of lock-ins so the users can't readily leave.
spk_0
Once those users are locked in, they make things worse for those end users in order to tempt
spk_0
in business customers.
spk_0
One way to think about this that's very straightforward is Facebook went from promising users.
spk_0
They would never spy on them to spying on them a lot.
spk_0
Having locked in those business customers, they then abuse those business customers as
spk_0
well.
spk_0
And the end goal is to draw out all surplus value allocated to shareholders and executives
spk_0
and create an equilibrium where there's just like the minimum homeopathic residue of
spk_0
value left to keep users locked in and then keep business customers locked to users.
spk_0
And to return all surplus value to shareholders and executives.
spk_0
Okay, now surely we must have some agency here.
spk_0
I mean, why can't we just leave the platforms when we agree that they've gotten lousy?
spk_0
Well, that's where the lock-in comes in.
spk_0
And maybe I'll work backwards here and talk about lock-in of business customers.
spk_0
So we have got a lot of discursive and theoretical attention on monopoly, powerful sellers.
spk_0
But we don't pay a lot of attention to monopsony, which is powerful buyers.
spk_0
If you operate a firm, you understand that if a customer accounts for say 20 or 30% of
spk_0
your turnover and they just stop doing business with you overnight, that is catastrophic.
spk_0
Anyone has ever done business with Walmart knows what this looks like.
spk_0
But also everyone is still putting videos on YouTube as they crank down the compensation
spk_0
to creators knows what this looks like.
spk_0
It's very hard to escape a powerful buyer.
spk_0
But in terms of consumer lock-in, there's many different ways of accomplishing it.
spk_0
This is, I think, the primary source of innovation in Silicon Valley is finding ways to lock-in end users.
spk_0
You can do it in concert with the state.
spk_0
Since 1998, America has had a law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
spk_0
and Section 12 of the DMCA establishes a felony punishable by five-year prison sentence
spk_0
in a $500,000 fine for defeating and access control.
spk_0
And so if there's software in a device, and the only way to modify it is to bypass something
spk_0
that says, like, don't modify the software.
spk_0
The act of modifying the software, even if you don't inferring anyone's copyright,
spk_0
even if you don't violate anyone's law, is a felony that you can go to jail for five years for.
spk_0
And so this is how you get lock-in with, say, printer ink.
spk_0
Right? So the companies have merged to a cartel for giant companies, control all the printers.
spk_0
They have fitted the printer cartridges with security chips that are a software lock and access
spk_0
control. And it checks to see whether you're using an OEM cartridge with the original ink in it,
spk_0
or whether you've refilled or bought a third-party ink cartridge.
spk_0
And what this does is it creates a switching cost where if you want to leave your printer behind
spk_0
and go to one that takes third-party ink if you can find it, because the cartel
spk_0
have crushed those printer companies, you have to surrender all the ink that's remaining
spk_0
in your other three toner cartridges and the cost of the printer as well.
spk_0
And so a lot of users don't switch because at any given moment, the kind of economic
spk_0
irrational thing is to stick with the printer. And today, printer ink is the most expensive fluid.
spk_0
You can buy as a civilian without obtaining a government permit. But it's not just, you know,
spk_0
this kind of technological or state lock. And you have Uber, which was able to violate the black
spk_0
letter of antitrust law by doing predatory pricing, selling goods below cost in order to remove
spk_0
competitors from the market. They lost 41 cents on every dollar they made for 13 years. And they
spk_0
crushed all potential competitors except for an also ran, which is lift. And so in many places
spk_0
now, the bus isn't coming. There isn't a regular taxi company. And it's just Uber. And so Uber
spk_0
raises the price. And what are you going to do? So you mentioned Facebook. You know, why don't you
spk_0
talk whether it's about Facebook or other platforms sort of step by step? How a platform we fall in
spk_0
love with it for good reason and then something happens. So talking more detail about how a platform
spk_0
goes from great stuff to crappy stuff. So when Facebook started off as a public service,
spk_0
they had a problem, which was that everyone who could have been using Facebook and who wanted
spk_0
social media already had a social media account on another service called MySpace. And so they
spk_0
made a pitch to them. They said, come to Facebook. We are like MySpace except that we will never
spk_0
spy on you. And we'll never show you anything you didn't ask to see. So that was stage one.
spk_0
So as those end users piled into Facebook, they did Facebook's work for them. They found a way
spk_0
to lock themselves in. And they did so through something economists call the collective action
spk_0
problem when there's 200 of you and you're all stuck to Facebook. And some of you are there because
spk_0
that's where the people have the same rare diseases that meet. And some of you are there because
spk_0
that's how they plan the carpool for the little delete their kids are in. And some are there because
spk_0
they emigrated. And that's the only way to stay in touch with the people they left back home.
spk_0
And some are there because that's how they find their audience or their customers. Then the fact
spk_0
that you are dissatisfied with Facebook has to overwhelm the fact that you are very much dependent on
spk_0
your friends. And so so long as you love your friends more than you hate Mark Zuckerberg,
spk_0
Mark Zuckerberg can make things worse for you in order to make things better for another group of
spk_0
users. So that's where stage two starts. We draw down some of the value that has been given to
spk_0
end users in order to allocate it to a different group of users, the business customers in Facebook's
spk_0
case that was publishers and advertisers. So Mark Zuckerberg violates his promises and he goes to
spk_0
the advertisers and he says, do you remember when these groups signed up for Facebook, we told them
spk_0
we weren't going to spy on them. The actual fact is we spy on them with every hour that God sends.
spk_0
And for a remarkable small amount of money, we will target ads to them with incredible fidelity.
spk_0
We will devote enormous resources to make sure that when you give us a dollar to show an ad,
spk_0
to a specific kind of user, that is the kind of user and they definitely get shown the ad before
spk_0
you get built. So that business customers, they pile in too and they become dependent on those
spk_0
end users because very quickly Facebook becomes a critical source of business to their firms and they
spk_0
can't replace them overnight and they can't afford to go away. So that's stage two. In stage three,
spk_0
Facebook exploits the fact that business customers and end users are all locked together. And so it
spk_0
starts to withdraw value from both of them in order to allocate it to shareholders and investors.
spk_0
So if you're an advertiser, you find that the price of advertising has gone way up, but the
spk_0
fidelity of ad targeting has gone way down. So advertising costs go up ad fraud goes through the
spk_0
roof in 2017 proctor and gamble zeroed out their programmatic advertising spend. They had been
spk_0
spending $200 million a year on surveillance ads or programmatic ads. And when they went to zero,
spk_0
they saw 0% drop in sales because to a first approximation, PNG's ads were either not being
spk_0
seen by anyone right was just being consumed by ad fraud or they're being seen by the wrong people.
spk_0
They were just being misdirected by kind of indifferently tended ad targeting systems. Publishers
spk_0
also faced rising costs. So they had to put longer and longer excerpts just to be shown to their
spk_0
own subscribers. And to get recommended, the excerpts had to be longer still and nothing would show up if
spk_0
they put a link back to their own website and Facebook said, oh, we can't tell if those are
spk_0
malicious links with the effect that they become commodity back end suppliers to Facebook, right?
spk_0
The stuff they post is perfectly substantive for the material on their own website. Meanwhile,
spk_0
end users have found like that the share of content that they've asked to see in their feed is
spk_0
almost nonexistent to create a void through into which Facebook can stuff things people will
spk_0
pay to show them to see. That's the end of it. Stage three and shittification.
spk_0
This is great analysis and it's a little bit like Clay Christensen with disruption theory.
spk_0
It's very specific and your analysis is very specific to what happens with platforms.
spk_0
I'm wondering to what extent should our listeners care? I think most of us have a deal with the
spk_0
internet where we say, all right, I'm not comfortable with every aspect of it. I'm maybe not comfortable
spk_0
with the surveillance aspect of it, but it's working for me, right? I mean, there's some trade-off
spk_0
of convenience versus the negative stuff. So yeah, I wish it were better, but it's working fine for me.
spk_0
Why should our listeners care? Well, I think increasingly it's not working for people. So in a way
spk_0
that I think most people can relate to Google with a 90% search market who were just allowed to
spk_0
go on by federal judge, given permission to go on paying Apple $20 billion a year not to enter
spk_0
the search market with a competitor that might impose discipline on them, even having lost an
spk_0
antitrust case. I think we all understand that like our gateway to knowledge on the internet kind
spk_0
of sucks now, but there are ways that this becomes much more pointed. So nurses, contract nurses
spk_0
are very common in America because hospitals are trying to do union avoidance and used to be that
spk_0
contract nurses were supplied by local firms, several local firms in every market, and now they've
spk_0
been replaced by depending on how you count three or four giant apps, each of which calls itself
spk_0
Uber for nurses. And because the monopolies capture their regulators, those giant apps are able to
spk_0
violate the privacy of those nurses in ways that shifts giant amounts of money from labor to
spk_0
capital. So before shift is given to a nurse, the app buys their credit history from a data broker.
spk_0
Data brokers are unregulated in America under Biden. We got a rule regulating them under Trump
spk_0
that rule was rescinded. And the last time Congress gave us a law about this consumer privacy law was
spk_0
in 1988 when the Video Privacy Protection Act banned video store clerks from disclosing your
spk_0
VHS rental history. We haven't had a single new consumer privacy law since then. And so they're
spk_0
able to buy the credit history of nurses and they are looking for how much credit card debt
spk_0
the nurses are carrying and how delinquent it is. And the more economically desperate you are,
spk_0
the lower the wage you're offered. And so this is very bad for nurses clearly. But if you're
spk_0
getting a catheter inserted today by a nurse who had to drive Uber until midnight the night before,
spk_0
in order to make rent and couldn't afford breakfast this morning, that's bad for you too.
spk_0
So doesn't everything get worse? I mean, we're looking at these platforms that say,
spk_0
it's getting worse. You know, is this really unique to internet platforms? Obviously the details
spk_0
are specific to them. But isn't this things that worse over time or capitalism leads to exploitation
spk_0
over time? You know, is this really unique to tech companies and what they've created?
spk_0
There are sources of discipline on firms that used to operate on firms and that I argue have ceased
spk_0
to operate on firms. So historically firms had to worry about competitors. But we have seen
spk_0
since the Carter years a drawdown of antitrust law with the exception of, you know, late Trump
spk_0
one and the Biden years where we saw revival of it. And that has allowed firms to just buy
spk_0
each other and eliminate competitors so they don't have to worry about you leaving. So, you know,
spk_0
the most obvious example of this would be Facebook buying Instagram. And so we don't have
spk_0
competitors as a source of discipline. And when firms, when they cartelize, right, when there's
spk_0
only like five of them are four, three or two or one, you know, they find it really easy to come
spk_0
to an agreement about what their lobbying posture is going to be. I think of like Uber and Lyft
spk_0
agreeing to spend $225 million collectively on prop 22 here in California that formalize the
spk_0
work-ermis classification they do to treat employees as contractors. You know, these companies may
spk_0
be competitors in some sense, but not when it comes to talking to regulators or getting policy
spk_0
over the line. And so all of that stuff that acts on every firm. One company called Laxotica
spk_0
S.Alor has bought every brand of eyeglasses you've ever heard of and every place you buy glasses
spk_0
from sunglasses hot to lens crafters. And they've raised the price of glasses over the last 10
spk_0
years. So they've gotten worse. So what's difference, the difference between glasses and computers or
spk_0
technology is that there were other forces of discipline that worked on tech platforms and that
spk_0
those forces of discipline that were tech specific also went away. And those two forces one is
spk_0
that the tech workforce was historically very powerful because they were scarce. And a lot of them
spk_0
I called them Tronpill they fought for the user. Tech worker scarcity has gone away. We saw half
spk_0
million layoffs in the sector in the last three years. And then the other one is a very interesting
spk_0
one called interoperability, which is making a technology that makes another technology work better.
spk_0
That used to be the order of the day. If a company made its technology worse, someone else would
spk_0
make a technology that made it better and steal your customers from you. But the growth of IP law
spk_0
has neutralized that as well. And so the erosion of discipline has led to the worsening of things.
spk_0
It's not the iron laws of economics of the great forces of history. It's specific policy choices
spk_0
that were predicted to have this outcome and that that did have this outcome.
spk_0
You don't write much in the book about AI. And I think you're right. The Google search is we
spk_0
would have imagined several years ago that Google search would be much better than it is. And in your
spk_0
book you talk about some of the reasons why it's intentionally not as good as it could be.
spk_0
But AI for all its limitations, for all its factual mistakes, it's pretty good. I think AI
spk_0
search is pretty good and certainly better than sort of classic Google search at this point.
spk_0
Do you think AI providers are likely to go through the same process or that maybe AI gives us an
spk_0
alternative, gives us agency amid some of these problems here? I think that we have to understand
spk_0
that the investment in AI, which is extraordinary, has been driven by exactly one thing. And it's not
spk_0
making cool pictures. It's not AI search. It's the prospect of displacing labor.
spk_0
When Gartner says there's $13 trillion in AI, what they mean is that there's $13 trillion in wages
spk_0
that can be shifted from labor to capital. That's foundationally what they're talking about.
spk_0
And while there's lots of other stuff going on, I think that we have to keep our eyes on the prize.
spk_0
And I think that it's important to note that whatever merit AI has for search or anything else,
spk_0
it's actually not very good at doing people's jobs. Like AI salesmen are much better at convincing a
spk_0
boss to fire a worker and replace them with an AI that can't do their job. Then AI is at doing
spk_0
that worker's job, partly because they're pushing on an open door. Bosses would love to reduce their
spk_0
wage bills. That is like the first characteristic of being a boss is to find ways to reduce your
spk_0
wage bills because it's an input that is something that feels like you should be able to reduce it
spk_0
through automation. As to whether AI is going to make this better or worse, I think mostly it's
spk_0
going to make it worse. Like one of the use cases where AI really is very good is surveillance pricing.
spk_0
Right. It's really good at figuring out how to tighter an offer on a per user basis, whether that's
spk_0
a wage offer or a pricing offer to find the minimum you're willing to accept as a worker and the
spk_0
maximum you're willing to pay as a customer. I think it's just a pure transfer from consumers and
spk_0
workers. Let's get to the part of this conversation that is, all right, so what do we do about it?
spk_0
They're very approaches. There's what policymakers can do. There's what users can do. There's what
spk_0
businesses that are part of these two-sided platforms can do. How about we start with businesses
spk_0
who sort of appreciate your argument and say, yes, we've lost power. We've lost agency. We're not
spk_0
happy. I mean, your PNG example, we're spending all this money and getting nothing in return. What can
spk_0
businesses do to try to change all of this? Well, I have to say, I don't think there's much
spk_0
businesses or individuals can do. This is a policy question. I mean, what can businesses do? They can
spk_0
shift the policy landscape. One of the things we have to recognize is that Chamber of Commerce is
spk_0
extraordinarily bad at representing the interests of SMEs and often lobbies for things that SMEs owners
spk_0
are extremely hostile to in order to please its largest members. And those largest members are
spk_0
predatory upon SMEs. But there are some large enterprises that have taken big swings at changing
spk_0
the policy landscape. And the best example I can think of here is Epic, makers of the video game
spk_0
Fortnite. Epic has sued both in the EU and the US, Google and Apple with mixed success, but some
spk_0
stunning successes, including a federal case against Google, rather, a frantic trust violation.
spk_0
It's going to benefit every SME that uses those platforms, it's having 30 cents taken out of a
spk_0
lot of money. Often the local chambers of commerce are better and they need to find industry
spk_0
associations that don't incorporate the monopolists that prey on them and that are seeking to collect
spk_0
rents from them because they have these choke points in the economy because you can't clear the
spk_0
choke point just by having a better product. If you do retail business and you want to reach
spk_0
customers in America, 90% of affluent households have prime and 90% of prime households start their
spk_0
search on Amazon if they find what they're looking for, they don't shop anywhere else, which means
spk_0
that you must be on Amazon to reach those customers. Amazon's taking 45 to 51 cents out of a
spk_0
platform dollar generated by third party sellers. They take so much out of sellers that they don't
spk_0
have to pay anything for prime for their own package fulfillment. They have 100% subsidy on Amazon
spk_0
package fulfillment. How many businesses can really operate on a 45 to 51% margin and on top of that,
spk_0
Amazon has now used to be an explicit now it's a tacit most favored nation principle where if you
spk_0
sell more cheaply anywhere other than Amazon, Amazon buries you in the search results on page
spk_0
11.000.000, which means that if you raise your prices on Amazon to make up for the 45 to 51 cents
spk_0
that you're spending at every dollar in platform fees, you've got to also raise your prices at Walmart,
spk_0
Target and your warehouse store. Otherwise, Amazon will effectively de-list you and then you won't
spk_0
reach 90% of American consumers. You can't fix that by having a better product or better product
spk_0
messaging or better pricing. The only way you can fix that is with private rights of action
spk_0
in antitrust law and industrial associations that back them. Are you optimistic that any of that
spk_0
could happen? You and I know the US vast in the US in this climate. Well, the US has certainly
spk_0
done a lot of backsliding. For four years and a divide, we had a lot of focus on SMEs and fairness
spk_0
for SMEs at the expense of these big rent seeking platforms. That's all been ruled back.
spk_0
What's happening that's very interesting, though, is that under the last years of Trump one
spk_0
and under Biden, and I know you want to talk about America, but internationally in Canada,
spk_0
the EU, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and China, we've seen this really muscular new wave of
spk_0
enforcement against large firms since like 2019. Political science has no explanation for it,
spk_0
because it's a bedrock of political science that if you examine policy outcomes, that they
spk_0
universally and exclusively reflect the preferences of the largest firms and the richest people.
spk_0
It literally doesn't matter how popular something is with the public. If billionaires don't like it,
spk_0
it never happens. This is kind of the first time that's happened in generations. Something
spk_0
amazing is happening in our political landscape. This is, you know, it's like gravity started
spk_0
working in reverse, and no one's noticed, and no one even has investigated the causes of it.
spk_0
I am both baffled and heartened by this because something has changed everywhere in a way that no
spk_0
one can explain, and that is really to the betterment of everyone who wants a fair and more open
spk_0
society. Even as the outward signs are getting more closed and less fair, this tailwind, which is
spk_0
blowing so ferociously in the sales of policymakers all over the world, coming from somewhere,
spk_0
it's coming, I think from if you're in finance, you'll know Stein's law, anything that can't go
spk_0
on forever will eventually stop. It's coming from having reached the limits of rantextraction
spk_0
and neofutilism, and there just being some inco-ate force that's changing things.
spk_0
You've studied technology, and you've studied the people who own the big technology firms.
spk_0
I still don't entirely understand why some of these very idealistic people who created technologies,
spk_0
in fact, to make the world a better place, to find the source of all knowledge, or to connect people
spk_0
who you know they brought, labor in, who were part of the mission. So then at some point they become
spk_0
CEOs of these companies, and not only want to succeed, but want to destroy,
spk_0
want to monopolize, want to wipe out, want to maximize everything you're talking about.
spk_0
How does that happen? How do these people invent something magical and idealistic in their
spk_0
garages? All, it seems, evolve into the worst cartoonish predatory capitalist. How does that
spk_0
happen? Many of our social structures are oriented around the tacit or even the explicit idea
spk_0
that we're really good at kidding ourselves, that we're really good at rationalizing our way into
spk_0
trouble. You know, the scientific method, the reason you expose your findings to adversarial peer
spk_0
review, where like you let people who hate you and want you to fail find the mistakes you've made,
spk_0
is because it's really easy to kid yourself that like the reason you didn't get that the result
spk_0
you expected was because you made a mistake in the experiment and not because you were wrong,
spk_0
and to just fudge your results. You read Adam Smith, and he's like, the greediest bastards alive
spk_0
will make something good for you if they fear that they will be ruined if they don't. It is not
spk_0
through the generosity of the baker that we expect our bread. It is through his self-regard,
spk_0
because in a market society where there are competitors, the baker knows that if he puts gravel and
spk_0
rat poison in the bread, that you're going to buy your bread somewhere else, even if he can save a
spk_0
lot of money doing it that way. So what we did was we removed the sources of discipline. Being
spk_0
shriven of all sources of discipline allows your stupidest ideas to conquer your life.
spk_0
So having written this book, having gotten it out, you know, are you feeling more hopeful or more
spk_0
pessimistic about the future of the internet? Hope and pessimism are not opposites.
spk_0
Okay, optimism and pessimism are the belief that things are just going to happen no matter what
spk_0
and humans don't have a role in them. They're both fatalism. Hope does not mean that you think
spk_0
things will go well. It means that you can see a way to make them better and you have the epistemic
spk_0
humility to say, even though I don't know what I will do after I make things a little better,
spk_0
I am willing to count into the possibility that if I change my vantage point by sending the
spk_0
gradient towards a better future, even just a little, that there may be terrain that I can't perceive
spk_0
or even imagine that will be revealed to me as I get further up that gradient and then I'll know
spk_0
what to do next. And I have tons of hope right now because I think so many possibilities are
spk_0
opening up in terms of things we do next because of international enforcement.
spk_0
Cory, thank you for being an idea cast. Oh well, thank you very much. I really enjoyed talking with you.
spk_0
That was Cory Docto, author of the book in shittification, why everything suddenly got worse
spk_0
and what to do about it. If you found this episode helpful, share it with a colleague and be
spk_0
sure to subscribe and rate idea cast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
spk_0
If you want to help leaders move the world forward, please consider subscribing to Harvard
spk_0
Business Review. You'll get access to the HBR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter,
spk_0
and unlimited access to HBR Online. Just head to hbr.org slash subscribe.
spk_0
And thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Do, audio product manager Ian Fox,
spk_0
and senior production specialist Rob Eckhart. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR
spk_0
Idea Cast. We will be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I'm Adi Gatius.