I'm a business student at a university and I have never received anything close to this lecture in quality, eloquence, and focus. I was truly fascinated the entire time
I have a postgraduate degree from a prestigious university in exactly this subject- strategic brand management and clinical marketing - and this 48 min lecture has been more engaging, informative and practically applicable than my MSc. 😅
So happy you are posting these. Been studying your videos and information religiously... I have been using it in my business strategy sessions and I have been exploding my biz since! Thank you again!
Love your content Scott! The older I get the more my focus shifts to staying up to date with trends happening around me. Your videos never fail to deliver.
While watching this Scott managed to put 3 items in my Alexa shopping cart, causing me to scramble for the pause button, cancel items and turn of the mic. So after I'm convinced to buy more Amazon stock, he predicts they will be broken up. Probably still a win for my portfolio. Amazing presentation on the relationship of these companies!
Yeah, his witty insights into the "strange" ways the 'market' behaves are so glaringly self-evident, so painfully apparent, that I can't help but feel like an utter moron for not seeing some of this shit before Galloway spelled it out for 'me'.
Love, love, love this. Great content. I'm going to get all three of my twenty-something daughters to watch this. Scott Galloway is the coolest guy on the planet.
This professor never talks about how not collecting sales tax for many years has immensely benefited Amazon vs Walmart (just one detail that helps in understanding how today's status comes from, rather than making it sound like some magical rise of some mythical business). Smooth talker, very trustworthy voice. Question your professor more.
@L2inc I love Scott's history analogies with WW2, but his description about multiple "Bradley" Tanks taking on one Panzer I think he really means to say Sherman tank. Bradley was a general in WWII, and a fighting vehicle was later named after him, but there were no "Bradley tanks" in WWII.
He was also way off base about missiles bouncing of German tanks. First, weren't any true missiles used by allies in anti-tank roles. Second, German tanks of all types were vulnerable to side attacks. Third, Russians had tanks that were on a par with the main German battle tanks by 1944.
Amazon is many many smaller companies allowed to sell through them for a price (as well as their own, admittedly wealthy, bits). This is exactly the same as large corporations that 'manage' all the brands we see every day. How many of those large corporations are there - four, five, six? Amazon is exactly the same but in the digital world where everybody is aware of it without reading a newspaper or picking up a book.
This still seems mostly relevant 2 years later. Apple and Microsoft are the trillion dollar companies that have been able to keep market capitalization over 1 trillion. Amazon only touched 1 trillion briefly in 2018. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This has not aged well. Apple is streets ahead at around 3 trillion compared to half of that at Amazon. Incidently, Saudi Oil was the first to 1 trillion dollars market cap.
"I'm a war history buff" then goes on to completely confuse his tanks. I love your stuff Scott, the best on RU-vid, but get a better intern to help with your research please! The Panzer III was an early war tank, and not known for its "toughness". His pic seems to be that of a B or E model, which had ~30mm of armor. The Pz.III late models maxed out at 50mm hull and 57mm turret armor. Hardly impenetrable. The early war American M3 Lee's had 50mm hull and 76mm turret as did the early war Sherman's. Late war Sherman's had 50 or 63mm hull, and 76 or 63mm turret. These were also not well armored tanks post 1941'ish. I believe he is confusing the PZ.III with the legendarily tough Tiger, which had 100mm of frontal armor and were known to absorb and bounce the shells from the most common allied tank, the 75mm gun equipped Sherman. The up gunned Sherman w/ the Brtiish 76mm could penn a Tiger without much problem especially with the late war HVAP round. The best place to shoot a Tiger I was not so much the rear, but the sides. Both rear and sides had 82mm of armor, but the ammo racks and fuel tanks were more easily targeted on the sides. The engine sits behind the rear armor, yes hitting it disables the tank but you still have to deal with crew manning the gun. Hitting fuel tanks or ammo.. its likely game over. In war though, you take the shot you can get as often as not. Tiger II best place to put a round was in its rear, yes, but there were very few encounters with TIger II's on the western front. Also, I am not sure I know what Bradley tank he is talking about. The M2 Bradley fighting vehicle was introduced in the early 1980s, and was not a true tank. The Bradley was named for a WWII general, but that's as close to a Bradley tank you can find in WWII. Scott is very likely talking about swarms of M4 Sherman's on Tigers, which is often (falsely) cited as the only way Shermans could kill a Tiger. Reality is, true tank on tank battles were rare on the western front and the scenario he mentioned (even though popular lore) most likely never happened. Disregard the movie Fury, it's fiction. Military historian and WWII tank expert Steven Zaloga is on record saying he couldn't find a single instance of Shermans swarming a Tiger like Scott mentions and the movie Fury showed. Yes, there are true stories of Shermans being held up by a Tiger down the road.. but there are many ways to kill a tank and it didn't take 5 Sherman's suicide attacking to knock the Tiger out. The true story of why the Tigers were defeated is multi-faceted. They came too late in the war, were over engineered, took too much time and resource to build, too much time and resource to maintain, built by a then inferior labor force, broke down all the time, were asked to do things they weren't designed for. He was right on about fuel, and about quantity sometimes being more important than quality. However, in the chapters of war, you can easily find examples of the opposite to be true as well... quality to outdo quantity. All depends on what narrative you want to support your story. The end game is the superior Tiger lost out to the good enough Sherman because the Sherman was one part of an overall more effective and modern fighting force. Wait, what were talking about again?
For everyone confused, some brilliant individual was on here calling everyone idiot Marxist *%^%$'s and telling us to move to Iran. "4orce Majeure" His comments have since been deleted.
wow! This is amazing, and so informative. I agree with scott and in my opinion has a very accurate prediciton of amazon taking over almost everything. I would not be surprised if amazon had gas stations and an automotive company in 10-15 years.
Whole Foods is super selective in where they put their stores. When they figure out the grocery game, will they build to expand or buy another established player?
Oooh now I remember why I decided to finish getting an MBA after I realized it wasn’t going to enable the industry shift I was hoping for. The evolution of the business ecological landscape is fascinating and professor Scott Galloway preach on Daddy! Thank you for succinctly and so eloquently distilling what’s really going on.
Non profitability is just a way to beat taxes and use the phenomenon of compond interest by reinvesting in expansion. The question is...what effect does this strategy have on greater society?
Quite an interesting analysis. Basically, america goes back in time in some sense. Companies concentrate and pull huge % of wealth to them, due to their size and budget, they squize out the competition and gain power over the employees.
This is absolutely fascinating and have made a similar prediction regarding travel experience. I would be interested in your view on "The four's" entry to travel sector particularly air travel. There are 4billion travels every year. That's a lot of data and purchasing power
I am smarter and savvy yet I have not spent a dime at any ivy. I have taken for free nearly 48 corporate finance classes online coursera and viewed all of Scott vid.
I don't get the correlation in jobs at Google and Facebook and the loss of jobs at traditional advertising companies. Google and Facebook are media distribution channels but the creativity and campaign strategy still needs to come from somewhere. How come the job losses on he creation side correlate to the opposite in the distribution?
He got a lot wrong here but he gets a lot right, and he has a truly orthogonal way of thinking that is worth hearing even if it is wrong or you dont believe the angle, good stuff. Now hopefully he can get aboard how science and health has be co-opted by mega-cap medical companies... but he is probably bought and paid for by them in one way or another, so maybe not. Still worth listening to, just dont follow his stock picking.
Suddenly, I just realized that the name "Amazon" defines the greatest source of oxygen in the wild on earth and a mythical group of women who were so badass that men couldn't take them down. Giants. To think this started out as a bookseller - in a nation that doesn't really enjoy reading. Something like 50 percent of books are purchased by ten percent of buyers. Yet, Amazon is now a Gilgamesh.
That's how it's been the past decade. Its been about presence and propaganda, not profits- but we're about to see an implosion. This "new" way of running of a company is simply the idea of running on a deficit. Google is about to face reality with a huge reversal. It'll go down to $899 by October. Amazon is about to implode buying a brick and mortar chain, Wholefoods, and they're gonna get slapped in the face with how real businesses can't run on a deficit.
Or maybe these companies have learned that what the shareholder wants is cancer to a company. Just look at DuPont to see what it means to pursue profit instead of R&D. (Hint. They are being bought, split up, and sold)
So, in your opinion, what happens after the possible break up in 2020, will there be a one facet of the company to go side with over the others? And, also in your opinion, whom else in the world of marketing and business is worth the time to follow?
Fr James V Schall, "the last Jesuit" as he is called, is the master of polity, society and spirituality. Galloway occupies the same strata in economics... and beyond. I think they need to have coffee together some time.
Cryptocurrencies have one very big flaw, they can be overpowered. All it would take would be a motivated government deciding to put an end to bitcoin and the entire cryptoeconomy would collapse. You need 51% approval from the blockchain to verify a transaction, which means that to verify transactions resulting in every bitcoin being transferred to a single wallet a government would merely have to match what a few small time miners have collectively cooked up. This is something I'm relatively confident a wealthy private citizen could do if they were so inclined. If bitcoin ever gets mainstream N. Korea might take it down just for yucks. BTW, the reason I'm only focusing on bitcoin is because if the big visible one falls it doesn't matter how secure the other ones are, nobody will ever have confidence in them again. PS, Amazon rents out more processing power than it would take to overpower all the crypto-blockchains combined simultaneously.
Not “Bradley” tanks. “Sherman” tanks. Bradley fighting vehicles did not exist in WWII. And the Panzer was vulnerable from more angles than just the back. He’s referring to the “Tiger”. Great talk..but let’s get those right.
It seems silly to me at this point that I still hear people mention that they boycott Walmart, because they put the little guys out of business, but most of their shopping is done over Amazon.
36:31 You can get into a phone with a court order too. It is an offence to refuse to unlock your phone when directed by a court. No different to a warrant to search any other property. I DO NOT want someone to be able to access my data WITHOUT my permission or a court order. Apple's respect for privacy should be admired, not admonished.
We will be interviewing Professor Scott Galloway about his book 'The Four' as part of our book club. If you have any questions for him you can email us at hello@martechalliance.com.
This Amazon reasoning is only true as long at the price holds but what if 2017 = 1999? Then not only their stock crashes but their comparative advantage disappears...and that may happen before it hits the trillion $ valuation
i wish i had access to the questions on google that have never been asked before. its probably about 90% junk but the other 10 percent of those questions are probably the ones that could solve some huge problem if they were answered. its kind of scary if you think about it. before anyone makes some life changing invention they will probably try to google it first and then google can just sift through all those unique questions and steal everyone's ideas then put a couple million bucks into it before the person who had the idea even has a chance. or just find the most searched for product that doesn't exist yet and start making it.
so it seems like companies have stopped trying to make a profit and are instead chasing investor money by looking like the best investment in their sector? so what happens when the investment money runs out?
Do you, or does anyone, think that if Amazon's investors lose faith in their ability to monopolize the entire market, and once they have to show a profit they'll be forced to increase costs, thereby increasing opportunity?
