Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg PENL podcast. I'm Paul swing you.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahma Wicks. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg PENL podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. A Tesla stock is down eight
Speaker 1: percent in early trading this morning after reporting a record
Speaker 1: decline in deliveries during the first quarter, stoking concerned that
Speaker 1: demand maybe slackeing for the Model three sedan it introduced
Speaker 1: less than two years ago. To help us in all
Speaker 1: things Tesla, we welcome Liam Denning, Liam's energy, mining and
Speaker 1: commodities columns for Bloomberg Opinion joins us on the phone.
Speaker 1: Leat Liam, Thank you so much for joining us. How
Speaker 1: concerned should investors be should Tesla be about this latest
Speaker 1: delivery shortfall? A very concerned? Uh. I mean, essentially, what
Speaker 1: these numbers do is they blow a hole in the
Speaker 1: growth narrative around the stock. Um One number to keep
Speaker 1: in mind is that the stock was off the last
Speaker 1: time I looked. It was off about eight cent down
Speaker 1: in the kind of two sixties level. Um. That is
Speaker 1: still if you can believe it, more than five thousand
Speaker 1: times gap earnings estimates, this is a stock that needs
Speaker 1: a growth narrative to to stay anywhere near where it's
Speaker 1: valuation is right now. And on what we saw in
Speaker 1: these first quarter sales numbers is you know, if you
Speaker 1: think about Tesla's lineup, you can divide it into two camps.
Speaker 1: The Model three is the growth engine. That's where you know,
Speaker 1: it's a lower priced, lower price model that's meant to
Speaker 1: ramp up volume and bring Tesla towards being more of
Speaker 1: a mass market car maker. Um. The Models F and X,
Speaker 1: the older ones, are the higher price variants. They're kind
Speaker 1: of pools of gross profit margin. Both of them took
Speaker 1: a hit. So the Model three was down about quarter
Speaker 1: on quarter in terms of deliveries, and the Model lesson
Speaker 1: X was down more than a half. How much can
Speaker 1: we just say, well, right now, there are a bunch
Speaker 1: of headwins. You've got the electric vehicle attack subsidy that
Speaker 1: the US had been allowing that they actually pulled back on.
Speaker 1: Then you have the fact that China is having some
Speaker 1: concerns with the US overtrade that that might impede uh
Speaker 1: Tesla's footprint there. I mean, how much how many excuses
Speaker 1: can you make for Tesla that actually ring true to you?
Speaker 1: I mean, there are headwinds, and you know, no one
Speaker 1: should downplay the challenges of trying to trying to you know,
Speaker 1: grow grow the electric vehicle market. UM. I think Tesla's
Speaker 1: problem is a little more structural than that. The problem
Speaker 1: they have is that what they essentially did towards the
Speaker 1: end of was to pull forward UM demand for the
Speaker 1: Model three UM and especially the kind of higher priced verys.
Speaker 1: And you know, one of the things that happened at
Speaker 1: the end of twenty eight teen was that Tesla reported
Speaker 1: UM two consecutive quarters profitable quarters, the first time it's
Speaker 1: ever done that. Not big profits, but profits nonetheless, and
Speaker 1: that was seen by many as as kind of the
Speaker 1: company turning a corner. UM. What we're looking at now
Speaker 1: with the first quarter numbers is I would say, payback
Speaker 1: for that pulling forward of demand, and in some ways,
Speaker 1: while it's clear Q one numbers when they get reported
Speaker 1: in a few weeks time, I'm not going to be good.
Speaker 1: The bigger question is probably what happens in Q two,
Speaker 1: Q three because unless we see volume come back, then
Speaker 1: Tessa's profit and cashlow numbers especially are just not going
Speaker 1: to look good. So, Liam, it's not just production and
Speaker 1: delivery and sales issues that Tesla is facing at the moment.
Speaker 1: There's also something with the SEC. And I know you're
Speaker 1: heading to court later today about the Elon Musk issue
Speaker 1: with the SEC. You can you give us the latest
Speaker 1: on what is going on there and what could the
Speaker 1: judge rule today? Sure? So this goes back to Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's um u tustle with the SEC over his funding
Speaker 1: secured tweet last August. Essentially, he came to a settlement
Speaker 1: with the SEC. The SEC alleges that he violated that
Speaker 1: settlement and basically asked a judge to find Elon Musk
Speaker 1: in contempt um. Both sides filed their respective arguments and
Speaker 1: the judges asked for oral arguments today. That's where I'm
Speaker 1: heading later. It's unclear exactly what will happen this kind
Speaker 1: of ruling. My understanding, it's quite narrowly defined. So my
Speaker 1: guesses we're not going to see anything terribly dramatic today.
Speaker 1: Possibly we might see the judge impose another fine of
Speaker 1: some sort. Essentially, what the judge is going to what
Speaker 1: the CEC wants the judge to do today, it's to
Speaker 1: take some sort of action that will four Cylon Musk
Speaker 1: to to uphold the terms of the settlement. Um. For
Speaker 1: the company, it's an unwelcome distraction. It's possibly damaging for
Speaker 1: the brand who knows UM. But for me it highlights
Speaker 1: just the sort of the chronic problems of governance UM
Speaker 1: at Tesla. Just quickly here, I'm wondering why you think
Speaker 1: the shares aren't down more because you started out saying
Speaker 1: that there's still a five thousand at times profitability kind
Speaker 1: of baked into valuation, bagged into the stocks right now.
Speaker 1: So why haven't we seen a bigger fall? Well, I
Speaker 1: think you know, partly it's because Tesla has in the
Speaker 1: past shrugged off UM bad news. Remember, this is a
Speaker 1: stock where the value is largely predicated on people's long
Speaker 1: term views. Their faith in the gene is Elon Musk, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So one set of historical numbers taken on its own
Speaker 1: tends not to shake UH kind of core faith in
Speaker 1: the stock. However, as we look forward, I think what
Speaker 1: people may be waiting for at least some members of
Speaker 1: the shareholder base. Maybe waiting for is the actual accounts
Speaker 1: when they come out, you know, in a few weeks time.
Speaker 1: And I'm waiting to see what these bad sales numbers mean,
Speaker 1: really mean for profits, cash flow, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Liam Denning, thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: Liam Dunning is the energy, mining and commodities calumnists for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion, talking about Tesla and how the numbers just
Speaker 1: don't matter for some people. It's all about face. Well,
Speaker 1: I am sitting here watching Paul Sweeney reading Chicken Soup
Speaker 1: for his Soul, trying to find some sort of elixir
Speaker 1: to the daily grind that I put him through. So
Speaker 1: I think we'll have to talk about that, and we'll
Speaker 1: have to talk about that with someone who knows better
Speaker 1: than I about Chicken Soup for the Soul, and that
Speaker 1: is Bill Rohanna, Chairman and chief executive officer of Chicken
Speaker 1: Soup for the Soul Entertainment. He joins us here in
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers Studios. Bill, we're here to talk
Speaker 1: about Chicken Soup for the Soul, but in particular the
Speaker 1: new venture with Sony Pictures, which is sort of an
Speaker 1: interesting play on the new media business model. Please explain. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, good morning, and second second of all,
Speaker 1: our joint venture with Sony it's called Crackle plus uh
Speaker 1: is an online network that's a supported So you you
Speaker 1: may have heard this phrase a VOD which is different
Speaker 1: than SVOD, which is subscription video on demand, and a
Speaker 1: VOD is now sort of I love that Paul is
Speaker 1: nodding along and a VOD and spot mean nothing to
Speaker 1: me but go on, And actually that's that's part of
Speaker 1: the issue and and also part of the opportunity. The
Speaker 1: fact is that the a VOD space, the ad supported
Speaker 1: video on demand spaces, expected to double in the next
Speaker 1: five years. We think that's a big opportunity. We know
Speaker 1: that people have taken and put a lot of resources
Speaker 1: into competing in subscription video. You have Netflix, and you
Speaker 1: have Disney and all those big players who are spending
Speaker 1: a ton of money to compete there. We think they're
Speaker 1: ignoring add supported video on demand, and we don't expect
Speaker 1: people to ignore free video that they can get and
Speaker 1: not pay for and can satisfy their needs. So we're
Speaker 1: building a big business around that. So give us a
Speaker 1: sense of that advertising video on demand market today. You know,
Speaker 1: what's the size of it? Who are the players? Is
Speaker 1: it growing? How big is it? Yeah? So today it's
Speaker 1: it's said to be about fourteen or fifteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year, which is not a very big market, and
Speaker 1: as I said, it's expected to more than double over
Speaker 1: the next five years. I mean, we are now one
Speaker 1: of the biggest players with Crackle plus, we may actually
Speaker 1: be the biggest player. It's a little hard to tell,
Speaker 1: you know, as as in many cases with new industries,
Speaker 1: the numbers are sort of coming together. The statistics are
Speaker 1: being defined in terms of monthly active users, which seems
Speaker 1: to be a very critical statistic to people. We are
Speaker 1: at least as big as anybody else. The other big
Speaker 1: players are Pluto TV to be UM and of course
Speaker 1: Amazon is moving into this space like they apparently are
Speaker 1: moving into everything, so so so they're going to be
Speaker 1: a certainly a big player. Can you just tell us
Speaker 1: Chicken Soup for the Soul entertainment? Which shows are on that? Okay,
Speaker 1: so Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment has a few parts.
Speaker 1: One part is the part we're talking about right now.
Speaker 1: Our online Network part. But we also have a Chicken
Speaker 1: Soup for the Soul Originals production series, which has eleven
Speaker 1: series that we've produced over the years. Chicken Soup for
Speaker 1: the Soul's Hidden Heroes has been on CBS and the
Speaker 1: c W and it was just nominated for an Emmy Award,
Speaker 1: which we're very proud of for Outstanding Family Series. But
Speaker 1: we also have series such as Chicken Soup for the
Speaker 1: Soul's Animal Tails, which is on the c W. We've
Speaker 1: on things called Project Dad which was on TLC and
Speaker 1: Discovery Life. We've done a whole series of series. So,
Speaker 1: but how much of this would go on the Did
Speaker 1: I do that right? Yeah? You got it right. Um. So,
Speaker 1: our strategy from the very beginning, Lisa, was to build
Speaker 1: the capability to make content profitably with the idea that
Speaker 1: we would retain rights to go on to our own networks.
Speaker 1: Because in the network business and the AVON and SVAD business,
Speaker 1: there are two costs that matter, marketing to new customers
Speaker 1: and the cost of content, and so our strategy from
Speaker 1: the beginning has been to try to get an advantage
Speaker 1: in both those places. We've gotten the advantage in the
Speaker 1: marketing side by building followers and brands, and we now
Speaker 1: have about ten million followers on our social media that's
Speaker 1: up from one million when we started. And on the
Speaker 1: content side, we've built a capability to make our own
Speaker 1: series as well as to buy other people's television and
Speaker 1: film and we redistribute that. So we've done that in
Speaker 1: a couple of ways. All right. So when we talk
Speaker 1: about these programming services, it's all about programming. And we
Speaker 1: see Netflix going to spend twelve or fifteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: in HBO with its three, four or five billion dollars,
Speaker 1: what is presumably Sony is bringing programming to the table.
Speaker 1: So what are you expecting from Sony in this joint venture.
Speaker 1: We're getting a lot of things from Sony because they,
Speaker 1: like us, see a big opportunity to build a major
Speaker 1: network that's ads supported. So we're getting access to their content.
Speaker 1: As you said, we're also getting shared technology because they
Speaker 1: have a variety of networks that have the same kind
Speaker 1: of technology needs and that's lowering our technology costs. And
Speaker 1: we're getting this very large and robust network to start with.
Speaker 1: Is there any pushback from advertisers in how you calculate
Speaker 1: views and there the efficacy of the video ads, you know,
Speaker 1: not for us, but because we use third parties to
Speaker 1: confirm exactly what it is that advertisers are getting, so
Speaker 1: they don't have to count on us counting. They It's
Speaker 1: unlike Facebook, who does their own counting. We actually use
Speaker 1: third parties to count for us, and they report to
Speaker 1: the advertising I mean, I guess how sustainable is the
Speaker 1: ad supported video model. I think it's enormous. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be a very important part of the future.
Speaker 1: I don't expect people to go exclusively to subscriptions. It
Speaker 1: seems like it's too many. You know, there's a kind
Speaker 1: of a subscription fatigue already, and we're in the early
Speaker 1: stages of the development. I really expect the world to
Speaker 1: be about fifty AD supported subscriber supported. If that turns
Speaker 1: out to be right, then the market is enormous. Supper
Speaker 1: at Support interesting Bill Rohans, chairman CEO of Chicken Soup
Speaker 1: for the Soul Entertainment, joining us in our Bloomberg Interactive
Speaker 1: Broker studio. Bill, thanks so much for joining us. We
Speaker 1: are going to talk to a female juggernaut in the
Speaker 1: gaming industry, and we are so lucky to bring in
Speaker 1: Kate Gorman founder, chief executive and president for for Mason Games,
Speaker 1: based in San Francisco. Uh So, Kate, let's start with
Speaker 1: the fact that when I saw scratch off lottery tickets online,
Speaker 1: I thought, oh, that could really be sort of a
Speaker 1: lead in for some kind of addiction. But this is
Speaker 1: sort of the opposite, right, absolutely, Thanks for having me, Lisa.
Speaker 1: So what we have done at Fort Mason Games is
Speaker 1: we've created a free app that's disrupting the lottery. And
Speaker 1: so Americans spend you know, seventy seven billion dollars in
Speaker 1: Cisco on the lottery and a lot of that is
Speaker 1: in scratch off tickets. And so what we did was
Speaker 1: we created a free app that's free to play, free
Speaker 1: to enter sweepstakes, and you can win money by scratching
Speaker 1: off virtual lottery tickets or virtual scratch cards. And it's
Speaker 1: all AD supported. So we're really thinking about, let's not
Speaker 1: let people go and gamble. We'd rather have you play
Speaker 1: a fun game like experience on your phone while you're
Speaker 1: waiting for the bus or you know, intermittently throughout your
Speaker 1: daily life. So, Kate at Fort Mason Games and the
Speaker 1: company's focused on developing games that are catered towards women
Speaker 1: give us a sense of the gaming market today, what's
Speaker 1: the mix between men and women gamers? Absolutely so for
Speaker 1: Mason Games, we make games for everyone, but particularly with
Speaker 1: women in minds and for me personally, that means that
Speaker 1: women are thought about in the design process and portrayed
Speaker 1: respectively throughout the gameplay. And so Google did a survey
Speaker 1: that says of women in the US are playing mobile
Speaker 1: games today and I expect that only to grow more
Speaker 1: as our mobile devices become more prevalent and powerful than ever.
Speaker 1: And so we're really incorporating gaming and entertainment into our
Speaker 1: life throughout the day rather than just having shorter experiences
Speaker 1: once a day. And so with that comes more variety
Speaker 1: and diversity of players, especially women. What is female gaming
Speaker 1: versus male gaming? You know, there's not a stereotypical difference,
Speaker 1: but what I think that means is broadening our concept
Speaker 1: of what is a game. And people are having different
Speaker 1: types of entertainment, and they're looking for entertainment and these
Speaker 1: little dopamine hits throughout their day instead of just sitting
Speaker 1: down with a gaming console. So as we're seeing mobile
Speaker 1: devices and streaming expand we're seeing different types of games
Speaker 1: and those are bringing different players, and so there's really
Speaker 1: no male female gaming. It's just our concept of gaming
Speaker 1: and entertainment is expanding. Okay, what are some of the
Speaker 1: current trends in gaming right now? Absolutely? So, we're seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of really interesting trends in the gaming market.
Speaker 1: We saw Stadia by Google released, which is a fully
Speaker 1: streaming service that will use kind of these lower end
Speaker 1: devices to allow players to stream games over high quality
Speaker 1: Internet connections and using the cloud compute power to drive that.
Speaker 1: And then on the other side of it, we're seeing
Speaker 1: kind of these casual gameplay with Apple Arcade, and that's
Speaker 1: a subscription model. It will allow you to play offline,
Speaker 1: and so that's really great for trying lots of different
Speaker 1: types of casual games that you may not be interested
Speaker 1: in paying for upfront um. But altogether it creates a
Speaker 1: really interesting ecosystem of a wide variety of different types
Speaker 1: of games coming to the market. So, okay, I want
Speaker 1: to go full circle with you and go back to
Speaker 1: this digital scratch off lottery ticket model because it actually
Speaker 1: raises some interesting ideas about what advertising could look like.
Speaker 1: The idea that people get that dopamine rush, as you
Speaker 1: were talking about with the scratch off online for free
Speaker 1: without having to gamble their own money, and then they
Speaker 1: get actual prizes, presumably by retailers or other outlets that
Speaker 1: want to advertise I want to show off what they
Speaker 1: have to offer. How big of a business is that
Speaker 1: right now and how much do you see it potentially growing? Well,
Speaker 1: we can't speak to the size of the market because
Speaker 1: we're really one of the first in it, and so
Speaker 1: we're really growing it. It's us, but just since January
Speaker 1: we've seen our players scratch off over six point five
Speaker 1: million virtual scratchers and so there's a huge market for this.
Speaker 1: We're still growing really rapidly. But it's a really interesting
Speaker 1: and innovative way to disrupt a market, which is giveaway
Speaker 1: something for free and monetize it with ads. And we've
Speaker 1: seen this in many other markets historically, and so the
Speaker 1: lottery is one that, um it seems difficult to disrupt
Speaker 1: because it's a physical piece of paper. But rethinking that model, UM,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's hard to say what the actual uh,
Speaker 1: you know, eclipse of the market would be. Right. So,
Speaker 1: just lastly, Kate, when you think about women as gamers,
Speaker 1: is there any genre that's been particularly successful for women. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I think the casual market and they think of the
Speaker 1: games like Candy Crush, or we make a social casino
Speaker 1: game called Confetti Casino, which is really geared towards women
Speaker 1: to have a party like environment, no gambling any place, lots,
Speaker 1: and so we see over seventy percent of our players
Speaker 1: are female. And so I think that we see these
Speaker 1: more casual fun games with lighthearted themes that are more
Speaker 1: targeted to women, are respectful to women, are really resonating
Speaker 1: with women, but ultimately they're also playing all sorts of
Speaker 1: other games too. Kate Gorman, thank you so much. Kate
Speaker 1: is founder, chief executive officer, and president of Fort Mason Games,
Speaker 1: based in San Francisco, talking about the gaming business, the
Speaker 1: mobile gaming business, trends in that business, UH, and how
Speaker 1: game programmers and game creators are targeting women, which has
Speaker 1: historically been arguably a little bit underserved in some of
Speaker 1: the content. I don't think they're innatially playing Call to
Speaker 1: Duty all the time, but clearly they are a major
Speaker 1: as a representative of the female agenda. I will say,
Speaker 1: not really not playing called the right, but clearly a
Speaker 1: big segment. Well. The Wall Street Journal recently ran an
Speaker 1: article about how fewer men are buying suits as casual
Speaker 1: dress codes in the workplace become more widespread. To get
Speaker 1: a sense of how widespread, we welcome our next guest,
Speaker 1: James Fallon. James, editorial director for Women's Where Daily. He
Speaker 1: joins us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Both
Speaker 1: of the men that I'm sitting with right now have
Speaker 1: suits on carry on carry on and I have the
Speaker 1: tie so going full but no trousers. So, James, I mean,
Speaker 1: how big of an issue Is this a trend or
Speaker 1: is this a blip? Are men actually buying fewer suits? Oh?
Speaker 1: Man have been buying fewer suits for ever since casual
Speaker 1: Friday started, So it just depends upon what industry you're
Speaker 1: in and what category you're looking at. So I mean
Speaker 1: the Goldman Sacks changing its policy towards suits and allowing
Speaker 1: the bankers when they're not meeting clients not not to
Speaker 1: have to wear a suit is really what spurred the
Speaker 1: latest reports. But Goldman was actually the last of the
Speaker 1: banks to allow that. And I mean I knew bankers
Speaker 1: in London in the nineties who were allowed to wear
Speaker 1: more casual clothes when they weren't meeting clients. But if
Speaker 1: they're meeting clients, they have to put a suit on. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're ever going to see the suit
Speaker 1: disappear in you know, law, law offices or those kinds
Speaker 1: of places, the more traditional um professions. But I mean
Speaker 1: it is becoming more casual. Men are wearing suits without
Speaker 1: ties as I am. Um, sometimes with sneakers and so forth.
Speaker 1: So definitely, but not full ath leisure. Yet that's just
Speaker 1: left for the women. Yes, for them. Well, again, it
Speaker 1: depends upon the profession. I mean it's probably in Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley it's much more casual. UM. So, yes, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't think men, thank god, aren't going to work
Speaker 1: in leggings. Let us hope, although hey, if it flows
Speaker 1: your boat. I honestly, though, I am wondering how retailers
Speaker 1: are adapting to this shift towards something more casual. Basically,
Speaker 1: I mean you're you're obviously in a lot of different ways.
Speaker 1: I mean, start with the shoe department. You're seeing them
Speaker 1: carry a lot more sneakers and that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Then you're seeing them introduce a lot more casual wear
Speaker 1: and not shrink their suit departments. But perhaps de emphasized
Speaker 1: their suit departments. But even coming here, we passed Paul Stewart,
Speaker 1: we passed Brooks Brothers, we passed Joseph A. Banks. They
Speaker 1: all had suits in the window. Um. So it's still
Speaker 1: something that you are walking in Midtown where you basically
Speaker 1: many wall streets. So I mean it's it's a select group.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a very small sample. I understand that.
Speaker 1: But it's also the margins are higher on suits than
Speaker 1: on things. But also men buy casual clothes more than
Speaker 1: they buy suits. It's interesting, James. I mean, I'm just
Speaker 1: thinking about where a lot of college graduates are are
Speaker 1: are going once they graduate, and it seems like more
Speaker 1: and more are going towards technology. Um, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: just thinking about, like where my kids are thinking about it.
Speaker 1: It's this technolo alogy go West, and there is almost
Speaker 1: no suit culture out west. It is extraordinary, isn't It
Speaker 1: is extraordinary? But I mean, take look at the irony
Speaker 1: of the Apple News announcement last last week or the
Speaker 1: week before. All the tech guys weren't in suits. Steven Spielberg,
Speaker 1: Steve Correll, all the male guys, Hollywood people, they were
Speaker 1: in suits. I mean they were wearing suits. Um My
Speaker 1: eldest son works in tech. He works from home most
Speaker 1: of the time. If he meets a client, he has
Speaker 1: to wear a suit. So again it depends. I thought
Speaker 1: he was going to say that he sits there in
Speaker 1: a suit and tie and his desk feeling professional. I
Speaker 1: do have to wonder with with respect to style going forward,
Speaker 1: is there a sense of what is appropriate if it's
Speaker 1: not a suit, right, I mean it's sort of they're
Speaker 1: sort of a uniform that's you know, maybe a hoodie
Speaker 1: on Silicon Valley, But what's the uniform for business casual?
Speaker 1: Which is absolutely confessed they went through They went through
Speaker 1: that terror with on casual fridays where you know endless
Speaker 1: golf shirts and um Khaki's Uh. I think it's it's because, um,
Speaker 1: it's because I mean I uh was okay, slightly different example,
Speaker 1: but looking globally. I was in Tokyo last month. We
Speaker 1: had a we had an event there. Um. I went
Speaker 1: to a luncheon with the head of Fast Retailing. It
Speaker 1: was off the record, so I was told that the
Speaker 1: dress code was casual. So I turned up in a jacket,
Speaker 1: a shirt, a pair of jeans, and a pair of sneakers.
Speaker 1: Every other journalist there was in a suit in a tie.
Speaker 1: And I said to the public relations person, I said,
Speaker 1: didn't they get the casual memo? And he said, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is the way you're meant to dress in most
Speaker 1: circumstances like this, he said, it's it's a suit in
Speaker 1: a tie. Very confused. So so again globally it is
Speaker 1: the suit is still seen as the uniform. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to become a I'm not holding myself up
Speaker 1: a fashion plate, a jacket, a pair of casual trousers
Speaker 1: or jeans, tennis shoes, and then a nice shirt, but
Speaker 1: I hope not the golf shirt khaki thing. So how
Speaker 1: are the how are the you know, the Brooks Brothers
Speaker 1: of the world, I think suits, Men's warehouse, Joseph A Bank,
Speaker 1: how are they their suits? Their suits? I mean, you
Speaker 1: know men's warehouses in the Taylor Brands, its parent company,
Speaker 1: has gone through a real transition, tough, very tough time financially.
Speaker 1: They're adapting, but um ironically at the very high designer end.
Speaker 1: As I said before, this whole street where vibe where
Speaker 1: it was sweatpants and tennis shoes and hoodies, etcetera. The
Speaker 1: last round of men's shows. The pendulum is swinging back
Speaker 1: where the young kids are looking at suits again with
Speaker 1: tennis shoes in a more casual way. But to a
Speaker 1: fifteen year old who's grown up wearing nothing but hoodies
Speaker 1: and tennis shoes and jeans or sweatpants, a suit is
Speaker 1: now countercultural in a way, so the pendulum could swing back.
Speaker 1: We can't let you go without talking about fleece vests
Speaker 1: because we did have that story. I love to go
Speaker 1: with the golf shirts and the caccupants. That's your look. Um.
Speaker 1: I will say that Patagonia, we reported that Patagonia is
Speaker 1: cracking down on the corporate logo vests that they are
Speaker 1: giving out. They are selling, not giving out. They won't
Speaker 1: sell them to anyone unless they follow a certain mandate
Speaker 1: for their company that they think is responsible socially and environmentally.
Speaker 1: And I'm just wondering from you know, perhaps a sartorial
Speaker 1: responsibility standpoint. Vests pro con uh? Ever going away No, unfortunately, uh.
Speaker 1: And it depends upon the vest as a whether it's
Speaker 1: a pro or acon. Okay, fleece on the trading floor, no, definitely, Okay,
Speaker 1: would you allow fleece trousers on the trading floor. Let's
Speaker 1: put it that way. Are you are you a suspenders
Speaker 1: kind of guy? No, definitely not. Okay, that's that's Gordon
Speaker 1: Gecko in Wall Street. And what about skinny jeans, skinny
Speaker 1: pants skinny pants in it depends upon the man who's
Speaker 1: wearing or a person who's wearing the skinny jeans, if
Speaker 1: they're squeezed into the skinny jeans. God no, please, they're
Speaker 1: coming back making what I thought that not only confused
Speaker 1: double breasted jackets. They have tried to bring it back.
Speaker 1: Mark Mark. Mark Crumpton from Bloomberg News and Blomberg Television
Speaker 1: is trying his best to bring back They the designers
Speaker 1: keep trying to bring it back. It's not going to go. Basically,
Speaker 1: I could talk to you all day about this. This
Speaker 1: is absolutely fantastic and I don't think I'm going to
Speaker 1: have the image of men wearing Lulu Lemon leggings to
Speaker 1: work out of my head with the jacket casual Fridays.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being with us. James Vallen,
Speaker 1: Editorial director of Women's Wear Daily, joining us here in
Speaker 1: our Blueberg Interactive Broker's studio is wearing a suit, Paul
Speaker 1: Sweeney and Lung aside me also wearing suit and tie,
Speaker 1: I am not wearing a suit and tie. Uh. And
Speaker 1: I've got to say business Casual Friday is definitely confusing
Speaker 1: for women. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pen L podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woyds. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Lisa Abram whits one. Before the podcast,
Speaker 1: you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio