Memo: A Five Year Reflection

The writing of this memo shared a day with a podcast conversation with Bradley Tusk, the former campaign manager for Michael Bloomberg’s third mayoral campaign and political acolyte. Tusk is the co-founder and Managing Partner of Tusk Venture Partners, a New York venture capital firm that notes:

TVP invests in early-stage technology startups operating in heavily regulated markets, or creating new business models where no regulatory framework exists.

As I write this, one of the most substantive articles written about 2PM and its mission is just days old. Written by Sherrell Dorsey, Annaliese Griffin, and Rachel Jepsen: the essay encapsulates where 2PM is today.

One of the most compelling aspects of 2PM is the deft way Smith mingles deep data sets with historical narrative context, using thrice-weekly essays to explain not just what Americans are consuming, but how and why. He’s as much a sociologist as a trend forecaster. Smith has a way of moving seamlessly from retail and entrepreneurship, to access to capital and real estate, to the social forces, particularly race, that shape the market. A conversation with him might leap from retail square footage in the U.S. to Brown v. Board of Education to the current pandemic. Makes you understand why he chose the name “2PM” — “to polymaths.” [1]

The business of 2PM has long evolved since the first newsletter was mailed to a testing group of 12 (yes, twelve) friends in October of 2015. But this isn’t about the business of newsletters, this is about the content – itself. As the time and research devoted to publishing these letters increased over time (thanks to the growth in subscription revenue), so did the depth of discoveries made. This led to a slight revision of the company’s stance on matters of socio-economic and socio-political significance. I’ll explain.

The idea for 2PM came about while seated in the conference room of Gear Patrol, my former employer. There, I served as its head of eCommerce operations. Many of these commerce strategies were in place elsewhere: Hodinkee, Uncrate, and Barstool Sports already maintained robust commerce operations. At the time, I was taking a break for the world of direct-to-consumer brand development. By building online retail capabilities into the strategy at the now-Hearst owned publication, I was able to understand how media and commerce established a new playing field. But it was another revelation that set me off on this path.

2PM was designed to drill down on matters of digital industries.

The autumn of 2015 was a tumultuous one for American media. The upcoming Presidential election of 2016 meant that the vast majority of publishers found new angles to publish issues related to the game-changing election. As you know, it was an election that pitted the first-ever female nominee of a major party and a reality television star turned political firebrand. And every last publisher wanted in on the traffic. It was a field day for a lot of the venture-backed media companies who – like the New York Times – positioned the coverage to ride the wave of the most captivating elections in recent history.

Overheard in that very conference room, that day: “Is there an angle for us to cover this election?” No matter the area of interest, media sought to devote resources to topics in and around the arena of politics. The result was that industry-driven insights, stories, and reports grew harder and harder to find. Gear Patrol chose not to, but the idea was set. I found myself lagging in my work, unable to see the industry as a whole. I was tied to the minutiae and unable to guide the company’s next steps. The idea for my newsletter was born; I believed that by studying a cross section of industries, belief systems, and sciences – you would become better prepared to lead your own operation. 2PM was designed to drill down on matters of digital industries. To facilitate this format of curation, I avoided discussing matters that could be perceived as political. I wanted none of it.

On the eve of the beginning of the newsletter’s fifth year, a reader will be hard pressed to find references to party politics throughout 2PM’s archives. I am slow to explain developments by pointing to the happenings of news cycles, a skill that is aptly performed by Ben Thompson. But the essays have certainly evolved. There’s good reason that a former political operative like Bradley Tusk has taken an interest in writings like Sanitized Urbanization. Or why the landmark case on school desegregation Brown vs.The Board of Education is referenced by The Plug‘s Sherrell Dorsey in the context of the essay on the acceleration of malls: in The Ballad of Victor Gruen, I explained America’s journey to over-retail by pointing to the commercial tax incentives that succeeded this landmark decision. The United States saw one mall turn into 25 in just two years. In the decade that followed, 25 malls became 1,000. America’s resegregation was the culprit. Is that political? It shouldn’t be – it’s merely the correct analysis. A more recent example explores recent educational shifts and the potential of long-term impairment of our consumer economy.

The key to middle-class growth has been the pursuit of the aspirational American Dream. A family makes a good living, their children go to good schools, those students are afforded better experiences that provide a ladder to an even better life. Between 1945 and the close of the 1970s, this approach provided a virtuous cycle that served as the basis for the golden age in middle-class economics.[1]

While far from political in the contemporary sense, 2PM has not shied away from the impact of socio-politics on our industries, our realities, and the innovations that accelerates those trends or upends them altogether. What I have come to learn is that there is an incredible advantage to viewing today’s industries outside of the narrow scope that typically constrains their narratives. 2PM will always include the practical sciences of commerce. But the higher you are in leadership, the less that practical knowledge determines outcomes. There are always other forces to consider.

And with this revelation, yes, 2PM has evolved greatly from the first public issue [2] in March of 2016. By setting the expectation that I’d omit all mention of American politics, the readership suffered by way of incomplete data and shallower insights. The great literary giant Thomas Mann once quipped, “Everything is politics.” This is an over-simplification. Any decision that involves human nature can be perceived as politics. But relaying the role of policy, human nature, and the sociological impact of our history of decisions are far from political. Rather, those elements complete the context. They paint the entire picture.

I believe that this style better prepares the industrialist by shedding light on the past, contextualizing the present, and providing forecast to the future. The readers of 2PM, today, are much better prepared for it. Here’s to another five years and the discoveries that will come.

By Web Smith | Editor: Grace Clarke | About 2PM 

Memo: The Public / Private Linear Play

They did what? I was sitting in the office with a small group of investors when the news crossed the wire: The Chernin Group completed a deal to sell a majority of Barstool Sports to Penn Gaming. The room was astonished. Chernin had taken an ill-advised chance in betting on the controversial media company in a 2016 deal that turned out to be one of the smartest private market media deals in recent history. The irony of the moment was that no one in traditional venture capital would have risked their limited partners’ capital on Dave Portnoy and his band of characters. But quietly, many investors wished they had. The Penn deal didn’t make sense to many in that room. Why so early?

A 2017 essay by investor, media personality, and author Anthony Pompliano opened with the assessment that “Barstool Sports is building the most valuable media company in the world.” Pompliano, who spent time assessing the startup’s role in sports media, concluded the essay with the following:

I just hope that [Portnoy] doesn’t get scared and sell the company too early because he can’t handle true greatness. [1]

It remains to be seen whether or not Chernin Group’s sale of Barstool, coming three years after this essay, was too early. But the result was one of the most fascinating turnarounds of a legacy retailer in recent history, and the data suggests that Chernin may have pioneered a strategy that others will soon follow. Just seven months prior, Chernin invested in niche media company MeatEater, Inc. This deal enabled CEO Kevin Sloan to accelerate his company’s linear commerce strategy. The press release made it simple: The deal marks a major milestone in MeatEater’s plans to expand from content to commerce and builds on the longstanding relationship between MeatEater founder Steven Rinella and the First Lite team.

Over the summer, The Chernin Group poured $50 million of additional capital into the franchise, of which it’s a majority stakeholder. That money was used, in part, to make MeatEater’s first acquisition. The company acquired First Lite over the summer, a technical apparel brand that it has partnered with for years. [2]

But the Penn Gaming deal is different. It’s a public deal, one where value could be quantifiable in ways that you don’t find in private markets.

The Public / Private Linear Play

The Chernin Group has mastered linear commerce. If you’ve built a great product, you will need an organic and impassioned audience. And for companies that possess a captive audience, they’ll need products and services to support them. The digital economy rewards the companies that operate along the line that separates media and commerce.

Led by media giant Peter Chernin and Jesse Jacobs, The Chernin Group (TCG) has never been a traditional private equity firm. According to Portnoy, TCG was the only offer in 2016. Scouted by firm executive Mike Kerns, TCG helped to evolve Barstool from a simple cash flow positive operation among friends to a sophisticated operation led by former Yahoo Vice President and AOL Chief Marketer Erika Nardini.

Technically, TCG did sell Barstool early. But not too early. Given the company’s suitor, it didn’t seem that the Los Angeles-based investors seemed worried about the hasty timing. What they may have recognized is that Barstool’s value would create a wealth that even Penn Gaming couldn’t have predicted. With upside remaining (TCG still owns a stake in Barstool) and newly acquired stock in Penn Gaming – a publicly traded casino holding company – TCG created a unicorn asset out of a sports blog.

In finalizing this deal, TCG established a blueprint for a public/private linear commerce maneuver that we will see more of. Meanwhile, Penn’s stronger competitors are pursuing traditional partnerships to accomplish the same. This week, MGM announced a deal with actor, comedian, and musician Jamie Foxx in what traditional industrialists cited as a savvy move for the larger casino and hotel operator.

On Tuesday, BetMGM announced that Foxx agreed to star in their new advertising campaign, centered upon the invented claim that it’s the King of Sportsbooks. Possibly adopting from Budweiser’s “King of Beers” or maybe borrowing from their lion symbol meaning king of the jungle. Whatever the case, having Jamie Foxx on board will certainly get people’s attention and command respect.[3]

The BetMGM sportsbook is reflective of the shift towards gambling legalization, democratized for the internet commerce age by digital innovators like DraftKings and FanDuel. Many disagree with MGM’s insistence that Foxx’s impact will accomplish for the joint venture of MGM Resorts and GVC Holdings what Barstool accomplished for Penn Gaming.

No Title

I have bad news for BetMGM: Betters don’t care what Jamie Foxx things about sports gambling.They care what @stoolpresidente has to say. They care what @PatMcAfeeShow has to say. This will go down as an absolutely incredible waste of money. https://t.co/wJTr1B6dMv

Unlike MGM Resorts (which grossed $12.9 billion in 2019), you’ve likely never heard of Penn Gaming or a number of its institutions. With over 18,700 employees and a footprint across the Midwest and South, Penn Gaming owns and operates five raceways and casinos. In 2019, revenue exceeded $5.1 billion with an operating income of $500 million. The acquisition of Barstool Sports is at least partly responsible for taking the company’s market capitalization from a 1x multiple of top line revenue to a 2.5x multiple during one of the most unfortunate periods for sports in recent history. Penn Gaming revenue for the quarter ending on June 30 was $306 million, a 76.91% YoY decline. With the pandemic shutting down college and professional sports seasons, it was Barstool’s content factory that propped up the stock of a company starved for operational income from legalized vices.

At nearly 55 years old, Penn Gaming acquired a loyal audience and a digital-first future that will position it against the likes of DraftKings, FanDuel, and initiatives by William Hill, Fox Bet, BetRivers, PointsBet, and the aforementioned BetMGM. With the launch of Barstool Sportsbook in Pennsylvania, early signs pointed to its potential. The app led all others in sports betting downloads. Bank of America’s Shaun Kelley noted:

Our initial impressions are positive given the app’s ease of use and leverage of the Barstool brand to create a unique interactive experience. We think the app targets more of a casual bettor than competitors.

And this is where the value of Penn Gaming’s bet on Barstool Sports (and The Chernin Group’s bet on Penn Gaming) come into focus. As the legalization of sports betting continues to convert casual fans into gamblers, it will happen on a channel that Barstool is exceedingly better at than Penn Gaming’s competitors: the internet. But this $6.6 billion value add is more than a strategy for the gambling industry or sports as a whole.

The public/private linear play is the acquisition of an audience for a commerce-based company or the acquisition of a product for an audience-based company. We will see more of it as the Barstool Sports acquisition has proven that non-adjacent, private market acquisitions can have significant market moving power. The linear commerce strategy is not reserved for direct to consumer brands or influencer content. Even the oldest institutions can employ the strategy against their larger competitors. Penn Gaming has proven that. And in doing so, they’ve successfully hedged for a future that may become more digital than their industry is ready for.

Report by Web Smith | Editor: Hilary Milnes | Art: Alex Remy | About 2PM

Memo: The Great Divide

War Games, continued. We often believe a partisan divide to be a purely American phenomenon, but there may be no greater example of the volatile intersection of politics and global economics than the state of trade policy of China and the United States. Perhaps it’s always been this way. But this new competitive precedent has been established upon new ground.

In 1979, the US and China established a new order of diplomatic and bilateral cooperation. Between that year and 2017, exports and imports grew from $4 billion to $600 billion. However, the trade deficit and the unfairness of trade practices are lingering issues between the two countries. Their persistence is a stain on the rest. I’ll explain.

A new trade war has been born of alternative asset classes like software, film, brand, and digital community, some of which is influenced by the politics of mainland China and some by our own state of politics. Platforms like Snapchat, Twitter, Reddit, and Google have been barred from operating in mainland China in the name of government-sponsored censorship. Until recently, we have never threatened reciprocity. The government-sponsored forced sale of TikTok changes that. Oracle, led by major Republican donor Larry Ellison, has won the bid for TikTok’s US operations.

It’s not a clean acquisition of operations, and Oracle is expected to be positioned more as a national overseer of operations – a “trusted tech partner” in the US – rather than fully in charge of the reins. In an unsettling new setting of precedences, the White House will get to have final say over whether or not it’s a done deal. [2PM, 1]

With questions remaining on what the acquisition (or partnership) entails, the official dispatch from Beijing stated that TikTok parent ByteDance will not sell the algorithm with the creative community. The value of the platform is that algorithm. In essence, we are willing to let die an economic engine for creators and commerce just to return fire at China. For decades, trade policy between the two super powers mostly excluded soft industry but with piercing language from the highest rungs of government. That has changed. In War Games, I explain:

But with the US Secretary of State signaling that more actions are coming, the crackdown is looming. Cited earlier this month, Secretary Mike Pompeo stated that American businesses should be wary of “untrusted” Chinese technology. He also cited the dangers of Alibaba’s cloud networks. [2PM, 2]

Geopolitical tensions are accelerating trends that will have damning effects on American small businesses and venture-backed growth companies alike. The trade war has continued for nearly two years, Beijing and Taiwan are at odds over military activity in the South China Sea, China’s early handling of an epidemic-turned-pandemic has led to distrust between its business peers, and China’s relations with Hong Kong are further complicating trade matters in international business. Not to mention, potential of an American Spring has left international observers questioning the authenticity of it all. Action here and inaction elsewhere is a confusing position. America’s largest corporations supporting activism domestically and not abroad further complicates matters.

The calculus works in America where companies like Nike, Disney, and Apple skew younger and liberal. That same calculus falls flat in China where the wrong type of support for an identical form of activism can thwart business advances. Look no further than the release of Mulan.

This week, Mulan held the No. 1 position on Disney+’s trending tab. According to CinemaBlend, the film had a 15% share of all streams vs. Hamilton‘s 10% share in its first full weekend. Additionally, Mulan improved Disney+’s downloads by 68% with in-app purchases up 193%. This is in addition to a reported $30 million American opening for the film hosted exclusively on Disney+. In mainland China, the reception was not as positive, stemming from a report that the film required cooperation with officials in Xinjiang, a region that houses alleged mass internment camps for ethnic minorities and has been accused of forced labor practices.

Activists rushed out a new #BoycottMulan campaign, and Disney found itself the latest example of a global company stumbling as the United States and China increasingly clash over human rights, trade and security, even as their economies remain entwined. [3]

The result was an effective boycott of the film, which opened to an underwhelming $23 million in China. Last week, Alibaba’s Taopiaopiao movie review platform published poor social scores, shorting demand for the film and reflecting a disconnect between Disney’s efforts to premiere a calculated movie that required data, focus groups, and government approval to film. Disney’s Mulan was made for Chinese audiences by the Chinese and with the Chinese. The disparity between its American reception and its Chinese failure is an indicator that not even Disney can navigate the great divide between the two nations.

US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo) condemned Disney for filming in the region, in what he called an effort to “whitewash” the region’s wrongs. The politics of the global economy are growing more and more complicated. Of the Fortune 500, the following businesses have also been connected to Xinjiang: Amazon, Exxon, Ford, General Electric, Citigroup, Dell, PepsiCo, FedEx, Coca Cola, Nike, Heinz, Abbott Laboratories, and Oracle – the reported owner of TikTok’s US operations – according to a 2018 article by ChinaFile, an online magazine on US-China relations.

We’ve blurred the lines between socio politics, human rights and corporate business to the point that we’ve failed to realize the implications caused when those blurred lines are no longer acceptable. The United States has the most incarcerated population on earth. The private prison system is a big business with outposts near our homes, our stadiums, our factories, and our office centers. As far back as the 1990s, American prison labor employed industries like telemarketing, technical manufacturing, and for brands like Victoria’s Secret [4]. It would take us years to separate our corporate culture from this system and yet, our corporations present with an heir of virtue here and abroad.

Not to mention, a potential American Spring has left international observers questioning the authenticity of it all. Action here and inaction elsewhere is certainly a confusing position. America’s largest corporations supporting activism domestically and not abroad further complicates matters.

In War Games, I concluded with, “Businesses must begin to account for these shifts in geopolitics.” Now that corporatism and politics are so intertwined, it is only a matter of time before scenarios like these – unforeseen just a few years ago – become commonplace. The great concern for American business is that it will become too difficult to account for these variables at any scale.

Disney’s international box office numbers for Mulan flopped in historic fashion for reasons in and out of its control. But consider the long-tail effects of the discourse around its suffering performance. I’d surmise that fewer American corporations will be willing to compete on foreign grounds given the growing sociopolitical complexity. And with new precedent set in the United States by the TikTok acquisition, we can expect reciprocity in that respect. It’s important to remember that we have sociopolitical complexities of our own and in this era of global economy, that makes our physical exports, Hollywood films, and software platforms just as vulnerable. Consumer confidence could use paths for efficient corporate growth, but the two great national economies seem to be at odds more so now than ever. The great divide will grow. And more than ever, the American consumer will notice.

By Web Smith | Editor: Hilary Milnes | Art: Alex Remy | About 2PM

Read part 1 of 2: War Games