Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast in
Speaker 1: which we speak with some of the brightest minds working
Speaker 1: in the media business today. I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety.
Speaker 1: Exactly ten years ago today, I published a commentary defending
Speaker 1: the decision to publish the contents of the Sony Hack
Speaker 1: in Variety, the publication where I then served as co
Speaker 1: editor in chief. And so in this episode of the
Speaker 1: Strictly Business podcast, with the distance of a decade's worth
Speaker 1: of perspective, I'm going to revisit a decision that, if
Speaker 1: I'm being candid, leaves me with some regret more in
Speaker 1: just a moment. Do you know seven to ten consumers
Speaker 1: crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just
Speaker 1: one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from
Speaker 1: Ads to Zeitgeist Research. The study, which surveyed over twenty
Speaker 1: one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends,
Speaker 1: including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the
Speaker 1: rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire
Speaker 1: for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, slash culture Trends. To view the full
Speaker 1: report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences
Speaker 1: by participating in today's cultural conversations. Welcome back to strictly business.
Speaker 1: I've encountered some sticky wickets over the course of my
Speaker 1: thirty plus year career, but I have to say that
Speaker 1: decision to publish the contents of the Sony hack, well,
Speaker 1: that may have been the stickiest. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say if I had to do it all over again,
Speaker 1: I would do it differently because I understand why I
Speaker 1: did what I did then. But looking back on the
Speaker 1: hack in hindsight, I wish I'd taken a different tack,
Speaker 1: and today I'll explain why in detail. By now, the
Speaker 1: basics are a well known chapter in relatively recent Hollywood history.
Speaker 1: On November twenty fourth, twenty fourteen, a group of hackers
Speaker 1: based in North Korea, calling themselves Guardians of Peace, began
Speaker 1: what you might call a virtual terror campaign against Sony
Speaker 1: Pictures an objection to the movie The Interview and its
Speaker 1: depiction of their leader, Kim Jong un. Mister rapport, I'm
Speaker 1: an agent Lacy with Central Intelligence.
Speaker 2: You too, are going to be in a room alone
Speaker 2: with Kim.
Speaker 1: We got the interview. The CIA would love it if
Speaker 1: you could take him out, Take him out, like for drinks,
Speaker 1: like to dinner, out of the town.
Speaker 2: No, take him out.
Speaker 1: Do you want us to kill the leader of North Korea?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: As part of that campaign, they stole and leaked mountains
Speaker 1: of private information of all sorts from Sony, including highly
Speaker 1: sensitive emails from its executives concerning their business. Variety was
Speaker 1: one of many press outlets around the world that published
Speaker 1: some of the information that emerged from emails and other
Speaker 1: materials unearthed by the hack.
Speaker 2: Well, I was not.
Speaker 1: Alone in making that decision. It was a controversial one.
Speaker 1: When I think a lot about to this day, I'd
Speaker 1: say it's even fair to say it has haunted me
Speaker 1: these years. I can remember representatives of the studio begging
Speaker 1: us not to publish, citing the damage being done to
Speaker 1: their employees and business associates whose privacy was being invaded.
Speaker 1: I think they felt particularly betrayed that a publication like Variety,
Speaker 1: which has been such an integral institution and the entertainment
Speaker 1: industry for so long, would stoop so low. And though
Speaker 1: I felt I had solid logical ground on which I
Speaker 1: was able to make my decision to publish the Hacks disclosures.
Speaker 1: I admitted in the opening words of my article defending
Speaker 1: that decision that I did not feel good about it. Quote.
Speaker 1: The more sony pictures data keeps leaking, the more my
Speaker 1: moral compass spins like a weather van in a hurricane.
Speaker 1: What just a week ago seemed such a clear cut
Speaker 1: case of doing what my instincts have told me to
Speaker 1: do at every other moment of my career is now
Speaker 1: making me increasingly queasy. End quote. You know, I still
Speaker 1: recall that feeling, that bitterness in my gut that people
Speaker 1: get whenever they have to make any decision that doesn't
Speaker 1: feel right, even though you know it's not wrong. But
Speaker 1: here's the funny thing. When I look back ten years later,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't remember the stories we stuck
Speaker 1: our neck out to publish that emerged from the hack. Really,
Speaker 1: it occurred to me recently that I couldn't remember a
Speaker 1: single revelation from that time, which struck me as odd,
Speaker 1: because why take a principled stand to publish something that
Speaker 1: wasn't even memorable enough to stick in my brain? Years later,
Speaker 1: A fresh doubt started to gnaught me how principled a decision.
Speaker 1: Could this have been if I couldn't even remember what
Speaker 1: I was taking a stand for. Of course, a little
Speaker 1: googling brought it all flooding back, a random hodgepodge of
Speaker 1: fairly gossipy tidbits, sony executive and a movie producer making crude,
Speaker 1: racist jokes about then President Obama, another one calling Angelina
Speaker 1: Jolie a quote minimally talented, spoiled brat head quote, budget
Speaker 1: and salary figures from the movie the interview Celebrity Hotel aliases, Yeah, no, wonder,
Speaker 1: I couldn't remember this stuff right, But I'll tell you
Speaker 1: what I do remember, quite vividly from that a decade ago,
Speaker 1: the pointed criticism that came for journalist decision makers like
Speaker 1: myself from some pretty prominent celebrities. Not just any celebrities,
Speaker 1: mind you, but a group of actors, writers, and directors
Speaker 1: that if I had made a top ten list of
Speaker 1: the Hollywood luminaries I admired most they'd all be on
Speaker 1: that list. So that felt good. We're talking Brad Pitt,
Speaker 1: Judd Apatow. But let's start with the one that cut
Speaker 1: deeper than them all, because it was the only one
Speaker 1: that was targeted directly at me. The great screenwriter Aaron
Speaker 1: Sorkin not only wrote an op ed excoriating those like
Speaker 1: myself who published the contents of the Sony Hack, but
Speaker 1: in his piece singled me out and even linked to
Speaker 1: my commentary, which I thought was really cool at the time.
Speaker 1: But let's get to the not cool part, which is
Speaker 1: where he mercilessly mocked me, and I quote the co
Speaker 1: editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that
Speaker 1: the leaks were to use his word newsworthy. I'm dying
Speaker 1: to ask him what part of the studio's post production
Speaker 1: notes on Cameron Crowe's new project is newsworthy? So newsworthy
Speaker 1: that it's worth carrying out the wishes of people who've
Speaker 1: said they're going to murder families and who have so
Speaker 1: far done everything they threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the
Speaker 1: character Innigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride, I do
Speaker 1: not think it means what you think it means. End quote,
Speaker 1: not contend to simply let his feelings be known. In
Speaker 1: a New York Times op ed, Sorkin actually went on
Speaker 1: The Today Show to pound the point home. Here's a clip.
Speaker 4: Oscar winning screenwriter and playwright Aaron Sorkin. He's taking aim
Speaker 4: at the media and a New York Times op ed
Speaker 4: piece for publishing some of the emails and stolen information
Speaker 4: from that massive cyber attack against Sony Pictures. Erind's with
Speaker 4: us this morning.
Speaker 3: Good morning, good morning.
Speaker 4: Quote a little bit from your op ed, you say
Speaker 4: that the media has basically been quote more treason is
Speaker 4: and spectacularly dishonorable in publishing this. You do have a
Speaker 4: way with words, will grant you that? Is it your
Speaker 4: belief that the press should not have published this at all?
Speaker 2: Yes, listen, I think that I talk about this in
Speaker 2: the op ed. There are certainly times when the press
Speaker 2: should has an obligation to publish things that we're stolen.
Speaker 2: I talk about the Pentagon papers, but you don't even
Speaker 2: have to use that as as your standard. Loosen the
Speaker 2: standards a little bit. Is there anything in these emails
Speaker 2: at all that's in the public interest that points to
Speaker 2: wrongdoing at the company that helps anyone in any way?
Speaker 2: There isn't. There's just gossip there. You can loosen the
Speaker 2: standards even more, but ultimately you have to dispense with
Speaker 2: standards entirely in order to be okay with publishing these emails.
Speaker 1: Wow, So this is a good place to begin walking
Speaker 1: through the reasoning behind my decision to publish. What Sorkin
Speaker 1: is essentially saying here is that it's not as if
Speaker 1: the press shouldn't publish stolen in information of any kind
Speaker 1: under any circumstances. But he is setting the bar above
Speaker 1: mere gossip and at what he calls wrongdoing, which we
Speaker 1: can presume means examples of corruption or malfeasance, and not
Speaker 1: just filmmakers making racist jokes about the president. And I
Speaker 1: invoke that infamous example when I draw the distinction to
Speaker 1: make a point, by the way, which is to say,
Speaker 1: where does one draw the line at defining what exactly
Speaker 1: wrongdoing is? But let's not get caught up there. Regardless,
Speaker 1: for Sorkin, wrongdoing sets the bar for what he refers
Speaker 1: to as the public interest. And of course there's the
Speaker 1: other phrase he has fun mocking me with in his
Speaker 1: op ed Newsworthy Look in all candor. These phrases are
Speaker 1: so amorphous as to have become over the years meaningless.
Speaker 1: Any clever editor can bend them to accommodate the raison
Speaker 1: to etra of all but the most vacuous pace of journalism.
Speaker 1: During the Sony hack, I read many a justification from
Speaker 1: others in the press about how publishing the hacked emails
Speaker 1: was okay because it held up a mirror to how
Speaker 1: the business of culture truly operates. I thought it was
Speaker 1: hogwash then, and I think it's hogwash now. Not that
Speaker 1: it doesn't hold up a mirror. It does, but that
Speaker 1: the mirror alone doesn't justify the invasion of privacy. But
Speaker 1: I also didn't believe there has to be something truly
Speaker 1: revelatory on the level of, say, wrongdoing, as Sorkin might argue,
Speaker 1: in order to rise to the level of being worthy
Speaker 1: of publishing. Now, to explain what I mean by that,
Speaker 1: I want to explain what it is exactly I've done
Speaker 1: for a living for the past twenty years, because it's
Speaker 1: at the core of my argument. You know, people who
Speaker 1: aren't in my business ask me from time to time
Speaker 1: where does news come from? And I know there's a
Speaker 1: certain kind of naivete that comes with the question. It
Speaker 1: almost sounds like they're asking if babies are delivered by storks.
Speaker 1: But there is some nuance to the answer. So let
Speaker 1: me lay out the answer for a bit here. I
Speaker 1: like to think of news coming in four different channels. First,
Speaker 1: there's what's on the record, through so called official channels.
Speaker 1: Reporters get press releases, and there are sometimes press conferences,
Speaker 1: press calls, presentations, events, all these dog and pony shows
Speaker 1: where there is a controlled flow of informations from companies
Speaker 1: to the press, where they tell us what they'd like
Speaker 1: us to know about their companies. But what separates the
Speaker 1: best publications from the run of the mill publications is
Speaker 1: the information they get from others, shall we say, unofficial channels.
Speaker 1: For instance, there is a second channel, let's say, the
Speaker 1: information that gets distributed off the record that not everyone gets.
Speaker 1: This is the information that's often marked exclusive, that gives
Speaker 1: you reason to read one publication and not another. Now,
Speaker 1: just to confuse you a little bit, Often times the
Speaker 1: off the record information comes from the same people that
Speaker 1: gives you the on the record information, they just don't
Speaker 1: identify themselves. That's the third channel of news, what i'd
Speaker 1: call a leak. They're deliberately giving you information, but not
Speaker 1: through the official channels they typically give to everyone for
Speaker 1: one strategic reason or another. But lastly, and most importantly,
Speaker 1: there's a fourth channel where news is sourced, where the
Speaker 1: reporter secures information they're not supposed to get. It might
Speaker 1: come from other people within the organization, or it might
Speaker 1: come from the ecosystem of companies that operate around the
Speaker 1: organization that might be divulging the information for all sorts
Speaker 1: of reasons. But the very best reporters are those that
Speaker 1: can traffic in that information. Now, on the entertainment beat,
Speaker 1: these are the people who get the scoop on say,
Speaker 1: the big movie coming together before the studio is ready
Speaker 1: to announce it. Sometimes it gets even more sophisticated than that.
Speaker 1: We could break news of a multi billion dollar m
Speaker 1: and a deal before it's supposed to be announced. They
Speaker 1: even get the details of what the CEOs may have
Speaker 1: said to each other in a private conversation to make
Speaker 1: said deal happen. I myself know of a few stories
Speaker 1: where financial documents were anonymously snail mailed to me, referring
Speaker 1: to all sorts of entertainment industry dealings, in one instance,
Speaker 1: a fairly major deal where I may have no idea
Speaker 1: of how the info was obtained, but once I confirmed it,
Speaker 1: I ran with it. Now, why am I telling you
Speaker 1: all this, because when you think about the information that
Speaker 1: came about and the Sony hack. It's because it really
Speaker 1: wasn't all that different than the Fourth Channel information I
Speaker 1: traffic in almost every day. So when I hear the
Speaker 1: Aaron Sorkins of the world push back against it, what
Speaker 1: I'm hearing, to some extent is them really wishing what
Speaker 1: the Hollywood establishment more or less fought with me about
Speaker 1: every day back when I was co editor in chief,
Speaker 1: controlling the flow of information that gets into the public
Speaker 1: on their terms. Now I know what you're thinking. The
Speaker 1: background explanation I just gave is all well and good,
Speaker 1: but it's irrelevant because the Sony hack isn't your ordinary circumstances.
Speaker 1: This wasn't some I don't know mogul snitching to you
Speaker 1: about a rival's extramarital affair with some startlet he cast
Speaker 1: in his next movie. This information came from a terrorist
Speaker 1: threatening people's lives, and I was aiding and abetting them.
Speaker 1: As Seth Rogan, star of the interview, said at the time,
Speaker 1: quote everyone is doing exactly what these criminals want. It's
Speaker 1: stolen information that media outlets are directly profiting from. End quote.
Speaker 1: Look I get that. I acknowledged then that the hackers
Speaker 1: were essentially playing the press as winning pawns. I likened
Speaker 1: us as zombies, finelessly chasing any available information no matter what.
Speaker 1: But you also have to understand the slippery slope the
Speaker 1: situation had the press sliding down into. As I just explained,
Speaker 1: my job is getting information about the business of entertainment,
Speaker 1: both important and not so important all the time. So
Speaker 1: this time the information came in bulk instead of the
Speaker 1: usual tidbits. Now, is there some kind of tonnage level
Speaker 1: where I should cut off the acceptable amounts of unauthorized
Speaker 1: information I'm allowed to accept? And more to the point,
Speaker 1: as for how savory a character I am allowed to
Speaker 1: accept the information from? Where exactly do I draw the
Speaker 1: line between a North Korean hacker? Hacker? I should say,
Speaker 1: and for example, your typical Hollywood agent isn't. The simplest solution,
Speaker 1: given the impossibility of drawing clear lines, is to not
Speaker 1: draw lines at all. I also think you need to
Speaker 1: take into account the time in which this hack took place.
Speaker 1: Twenty fourteen was just a few years removed from the
Speaker 1: dramas of Edward Snowden and years before that WikiLeaks. The
Speaker 1: lessons many learned from their stories was that the ends
Speaker 1: justified the means when it came to stolen information. Never
Speaker 1: mind that Sony is not a government and there didn't
Speaker 1: seem to be any corporate wrongdoing on that company to
Speaker 1: report on. What's actually striking to me to reflect on
Speaker 1: now is how the optics would have been so much
Speaker 1: different in this situation if the hacked company in question
Speaker 1: was one of the bigger tech companies then, like Meta
Speaker 1: or Amazon or Apple. Something tells me, given the regulatory
Speaker 1: scrutiny they've come under for years, it would have changed
Speaker 1: the equation dramatically. And it's ironic actually to be talking
Speaker 1: about a time when the US government was concerned about
Speaker 1: protecting Sony, considering here we are ten years later, and
Speaker 1: there was actually a brief possibility earlier this year that
Speaker 1: Sony could have joined the private e equity group Apollo
Speaker 1: Global Management and pursuing the acquisition of Paramount Global, a
Speaker 1: move that analysts expected would have drawn regulatory scrutiny of
Speaker 1: Sony because they are a foreign company that already owns
Speaker 1: a film and TV studio. It's funny how the tables
Speaker 1: turned depending on the circumstances, you know. I also want
Speaker 1: to address there was criticism that I and many others
Speaker 1: in the media got back then, was that we published
Speaker 1: the Sony Hack content for clicks in all candor, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to deny that the web traffic value
Speaker 1: of gossipy articles never entered my mind at that time.
Speaker 1: Anyone who knows anything of an entertainmenttainment about entertainment news
Speaker 1: can tell you that this kind of business minded editorial
Speaker 1: content from the Sony Hack is nowhere near the most
Speaker 1: call it click rich stories that generate the high six
Speaker 1: figure even seven figure unique visitor tolls that most empty
Speaker 1: calorie famous person obituary stories generate. So really, it's kind
Speaker 1: of an absurd criticism to say we leaned into those
Speaker 1: stories intentionally to drive up those numbers, because they didn't
Speaker 1: make that much of a difference.
Speaker 2: When we return more.
Speaker 1: On my rationale in handling the Sony Hack and some
Speaker 1: of those regrets, do you know seven to ten consumers
Speaker 1: crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just
Speaker 1: one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from
Speaker 1: ads to Zeitgeist research. The study, which surveyed over twenty
Speaker 1: one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends,
Speaker 1: including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the
Speaker 1: rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire
Speaker 1: for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com slash culture Trends to view the full
Speaker 1: report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences
Speaker 1: by participating in today's cultural conversations. We are back where
Speaker 1: I am talking about my rationale for handling the publishing
Speaker 1: of the contents of the Sony hack. You know, in
Speaker 1: the years since the Sony hack, it's been interesting to
Speaker 1: see what has changed and what hasn't. For instance, I
Speaker 1: think it would be it would surprise many to learn
Speaker 1: because we haven't seen a fiasco at the level of
Speaker 1: what Sony experienced in twenty fourteen, that hacks are still
Speaker 1: a very big problem for the entertainment industry. Disney and
Speaker 1: Roku were hit by cyber attacks just this year, and
Speaker 1: in August, study by Unit forty two, the research armor
Speaker 1: of cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks, found that the media
Speaker 1: and entertainment industry is more vulnerable than just about any
Speaker 1: industry out there, as determined by the highest monthly growth
Speaker 1: in what's known as attax surface, the term for the
Speaker 1: total number of points within a software environment that are
Speaker 1: vulnerable to a cyber attack. Who knows, We could see
Speaker 1: another Sony at any time if you think about it.
Speaker 1: But what has changed is how high profile hacks have
Speaker 1: played out in the press. Think about just two years
Speaker 1: after the Sony hack. For instance, Russia hacked the Democratic
Speaker 1: National Campaign sorry Democratic National Committee and turned over Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn steadily fed the
Speaker 1: press for months leading up to the presidential election. Many
Speaker 1: experts in retrospect believe that could have been a huge
Speaker 1: reason why she surprisingly lost to Donald Trump eight years later.
Speaker 1: Earlier this year, note that the media behaved quite differently
Speaker 1: when Iran hacked the Trump campaign, and some prominent newsrooms
Speaker 1: were approached with materials from Vice President j d Vance's dossier.
Speaker 1: This time around, the reflexive urge to publish was stifled.
Speaker 1: There was much talk about not doing the bidding of
Speaker 1: overseas entities, not acting in the best entrance of the
Speaker 1: US of A. It was a far cry from the
Speaker 1: sensibility that had been drummed into my journalistic noggin since
Speaker 1: I was in college, which has been that the media
Speaker 1: is its own entity, not American or anything else, a
Speaker 1: third party observer that must be so steadfast in its
Speaker 1: neutrality that it has no allegiance to anything but its
Speaker 1: own aggressive pursuit of truth. To a larger degree than
Speaker 1: you might realize, there's some hair splitting that comes with
Speaker 1: the territory here that makes tearing your hair out about
Speaker 1: the ethics of what to do here a little bit
Speaker 1: too precious. For instance, I don't know if there's that
Speaker 1: material difference between publishing the contents of the email from
Speaker 1: the hack and say, aggregating or describing the reporting elsewhere
Speaker 1: of other publications who do publish those contents. And yet
Speaker 1: no less than the editor of The New York Times
Speaker 1: during that time did draw distinction, saying he would only
Speaker 1: cover newsworthy information surfaced by other outlets and not dig
Speaker 1: through the files itself, which gets nothing but a total
Speaker 1: eye roll for me. And yet I'd say that's at
Speaker 1: least a better solution than not reporting on the contents
Speaker 1: of the email at all, which to me feels like
Speaker 1: doing the worst possible thing a publication can do, which
Speaker 1: is to ignore reality. If something is in the news
Speaker 1: cycle for good or for bad, once it's there. It's
Speaker 1: not like looking away from something makes it go away,
Speaker 1: So those purests, to me are even worse. The hair
Speaker 1: splitting becomes all the more ridiculous when you consider what
Speaker 1: was true then and more so now, which is that
Speaker 1: when you really think about it, the whole notion of
Speaker 1: the press in these hacking situations is really like an
Speaker 1: unnecessary middleman. I mean, it's not like the hackers need
Speaker 1: the media's websites or the printing presses in order to
Speaker 1: display their stolen information to the public. The Internet is,
Speaker 1: after all, one big, open publishing platform, and together with
Speaker 1: social media, there's no intermediary required to direct the world's
Speaker 1: attention to something that will be of interest to them.
Speaker 1: Getting media involvement is like having validation for the materials
Speaker 1: in question, a reputable tastemaker who can co sign for
Speaker 1: its importance, but isn't really essential to the equation, certainly
Speaker 1: not nowadays, when the establishing media almost seems like it
Speaker 1: be a detraction, which speaks to the utter futility of
Speaker 1: choosing not to have published the emails. Back then, principle,
Speaker 1: the stand as some might have seen it, variety would have,
Speaker 1: no doubt been part of a very quiet and small minority.
Speaker 1: Had I any indication that we were influential enough to
Speaker 1: have set a standard, Otherwise, perhaps I would have felt differently.
Speaker 1: If anything, to be completely candid, it would have fueled
Speaker 1: the reputation my publication had earned over the years of
Speaker 1: being an industry lapdog, which I was not about to rekindle. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: I'll confess to feeling a sense of regret to not
Speaker 1: having just stood out as the lonely minority back then
Speaker 1: and sat out the feeding frenzy over those emails. Do
Speaker 1: I think it would have influenced anyone?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Do I think it would have even been noticed to
Speaker 1: the point where it would have engendered some goodwill in
Speaker 1: the industry. Maybe a little, But the skeptic in me
Speaker 1: says we would have been just been carelessly tarred by
Speaker 1: the same brush as the rest of the media, which
Speaker 1: would have made the move feudile. But with a little
Speaker 1: more age and wisdom, I do wish I was a
Speaker 1: little less cynical then and just experimented with well not
Speaker 1: being a cynic. I didn't have that courage then. Maybe
Speaker 1: were I in that position today, I still wouldn't. We'll
Speaker 1: never know, nor would I want to go through something
Speaker 1: like that again and find out.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening, be sure to leave us a review
Speaker 3: at Apple Podcasts or Amazon Music. We love to hear
Speaker 3: from listeners. Please go to Variety dot com and sign
Speaker 3: up for the free weekly Strictly Business newsletter, and don't
Speaker 3: forget to tune in next week for another episode of
Speaker 3: Strictly Business.
Speaker 1: Do you know seven to ten consumers crave more authentic,
Speaker 1: culturally diverse stories in media. That's just one of the
Speaker 1: insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from Ads to Zeitgeist Research.
Speaker 1: The study, which surveyed over twenty one thousand respondents across
Speaker 1: twelve countries, identifies three key trends, including the shift towards
Speaker 1: a more globally integrated culture, the rise of interactive and
Speaker 1: collaborative content creation, and consumers desire for more distinctive voices
Speaker 1: and original content. Visit Advertising dot Amazon dot com slash
Speaker 1: Culture Trends to view the full report and learn how
Speaker 1: your brands can connect with audiences by participating in today's
Speaker 1: cultural conversations