Ted Audio Collective.
HBR presents. Hi everyone, you're listening to After Hours.
I'm Yang Mi and I'm here with Felix and Me here.
Hey guys. Hey, Felix, hey Yang Mi.
So this is exciting.
This is our much promised mailbag episode.
Yes. What is the sound effect for a mailbag episode?
It's unclear. Yeah, it's not clear.
I'm excited to do this one because it's kind of, I feel like it's a little bit of an opportunity for us to say thank you to all of our incredible listeners.
All of you guys out there have been so amazing in your engagement and your kindness to us, we're just overwhelmed by it.
You know, individually as we travel around, but also the quality of the questions just indicates a level of engagement that's really fantastic.
So we are really appreciative.
And it's an interesting experience because you meet people, I met on a few occasions I met someone and the person is a stranger because we never met, but somehow the person has a sense that he or she knows the three of us which is an interesting feeling.
Most of the time it's like, you know, how do you put up with Felix?
That's what I got along with.
Yes, that's right. Yeah.
So coming up, questions from our listeners.
Okay, guys, I'm going to start out.
This one is a listener from New York City.
And they write, I feel like we're bombarded with so much business news right now as a mid -career professional, I struggle to keep up with what's going on in the world.
What makes it worse is so much of the media reporting on business seems more interested in hyping stories that generate clicks and views instead of focusing on what's really important.
My question is, given how much noise there is in the media right now, what do you think is the most important business story people should really be paying attention to?
If I were to invest my time in trying to really understand one story, which story should it be?
So, you know, I think the tendency is to pay attention to these really high frequency, fast changing things that are happening, and especially with technology.
But I think the things that get missed, it's the slow moving stuff that is happening that we really just don't pay enough attention to because it's not fast moving.
The one that I think has really been on my mind recently is kind of the relationship between companies and governments at a very broad level has been one where companies existed above governments in a country that just floated around the world.
And I think the Huawei story, it's all suggestive of a situation where firms are going to have to align with nation states that are their homes, right?
And that is something that we just have not seen in the last 50 years.
Now, of course, China, they've been doing this, but it's happening now everywhere, in Europe and in the U .S.
And so this kind of idea that executives and firms exist in some ether above politics I think is gone and what we're going to move towards is a world where actually governments demand citizenship from their companies and then they become agents of the nation state, which is effectively what's happening
in the Huawei story, of course.
So I don't know, that story to me is really important and we just don't have enough, I can't even structure my thinking about it yet.
You know, it seems so new, but it seems important to me.
You know, my response to this question is related to yours, and I was kind of coming at it a different way because all the news about China and Huawei has really brought into sharp relief the question of how liberal democratic capitalism can best compete against state sponsored capitalism.
And you're sort of seeing this play out.
But even more fundamentally, if you think about it, so many of our intuitions about free trade and in many ways our entire free trade paradigm is based on this time when the goods we were trading weren't that smart.
In other words, it's one thing to be trading raw materials or agricultural products or even t -shirts and microwaves.
But it's another thing altogether to be trading these incredibly sophisticated technology based products that will end up forming the core of a given country's communications network.
Exactly, yeah. So this is critical infrastructure, which means we're now at a point where these commercial interests are colliding against these national security interests.
Right. From a purely pragmatic perspective, should we be embedding each other's technology in things like telecommunications?
Should we care where U .S.
chips end up? What if they end up as critical pieces, for example, in North Korea's security infrastructure?
Should we care about that?
Or are there areas where we should be carving out exceptions to free trade in the same way we do when we sell military arms and weaponry?
Right. And I think the reason I struggle with this is that I think a lot of us want to live in this world where we can consider China to be a friend as opposed to a foe.
Right? There's so much to admire about China.
The fact that China was able to lift close to a billion people out of poverty in a 30 -year period, it's one of the greatest accomplishments in modern civilization.
On the other hand, the hard truth is there are a lot of geopolitical issues along which our countries continue to disagree.
And there are a lot of human rights issues along which our countries continue to disagree.
And so even though our value systems overlap, they don't fully converge.
And so when you're on the other side of some pretty fundamental disagreements with the country, what does it mean to try to push the relationship forward in a constructive way while still maintaining your integrity as a country?
And by integrity, I mean national security integrity, your values integrity, and so on.
And I just I continue to think that this requires such thoughtful and delicate diplomacy.
And I'm so uncomfortable with the fact that the conversation about this is being led by our current president.
One thing that is interesting is my intuition about security is I think exactly the opposite of yours.
I think the more we separate, the greater the likelihood that we will see really dramatic conflict.
I think conflict is really expensive for both sides now because exactly because we're so intertwined.
And what is happening now, if we continue on the current path, I think China will have its own infrastructure, will have its own technology, the US will have its own infrastructure, will have its own technology.
A little bit going back to the situation in the Cold War.
And that seems so much more risky to me because the cost of being separated already then make it so much more likely, so much easier to actually escalate conflicts.
Oh, I think it's even worse than you describe, right, Felix, because you're going to force other countries to take sides, right?
Yes. So you will see different countries align themselves.
And so. And this is happening with Huawei now in the UK and all through Europe.
I think that neat thing about what you're suggesting, Young Me, is A, for sure, that the decline of the free trade paradigm, we just don't know how much of peace that has underwritten for the last 50 years, right?
So the rise of free trade has effectively underwritten, I think, decades of peace.
And then the second thing that's interesting to me is it's, in a way, it's not just about trade, right?
It's about these firms.
So what does it mean to be a US chip if it's manufactured all over the place, right?
So it's not even just the balance of trade things.
It's not like firms can relocate production to satisfy people.
It's actually now loyalty and identity.
You know, like, so firms and managers have identities in loyalty nation states, and now we're saying, well, that matters in a way that we never said before.
And that's a really tricky set of issues.
And Huawei is just the canary in the coal mine, and we see it all over the place.
But it just feels like the next 30 years are going to be about that.
I mean, there's a story where you return to this kind of golden era of integration and prosperity and peace.
But it strikes me that that's less likely.
And what we're seeing is this devolution into fragmentation and then businesses who have to align themselves in a fragmented world in a way they never had to do for the last 50 years.
Today, more than ever, the need for delicate diplomacy is so salient, and the fact that we are escalating in using the language of war to talk about this trade dispute is alarming.
I mean, the advantage that China has in any economic dispute with the U .S.
is that it's willing to play a long game.
So while Trump is obsessed with what things mean for his approval ratings this week, China's thinking like in 10 -year increments.
And so even though a tariff war might hurt China more than it hurts the U .S.
in the immediate term, that is not what is going to end up being important.
I'm in Shanghai this week, and what's really interesting to me is so you're exactly right, young leaders, sort of the sense of the long game that they're playing.
But the other thing that you see which I find even more interesting is the speed with which they adjust is just unbelievable.
I've met a dozen business people.
Everyone has a story where they relocate part of their supply chain to Vietnam.
Everyone has a story where they reach out to European customers.
And that's probably the other, even though it's a really large and big economy, the other advantage that it has is that the notion of speed is so ingrained here.
And sometimes a little scary because people jump before they really have to jump, but boy, the adjustment is underway in ways that I don't think many people understand who don't spend a lot of time here in China.
Yeah, this is one that's going to shape the world in so many ways for years to come.
Okay, let's move on to the next question.
This is a listener from London.
We spend so much time obsessing about the big consumer tech giants like Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google, as well as Chinese companies like Alibaba and Tencent.
In your opinion, what company is best positioned to join the ranks of these consumer tech giants?
Who will we be talking about next year in the same breath as this group?
That's another really good question.
Yes. I mean, this is a really tough question, but I'll say two things.
One is, I don't think the meteoric rise of companies like Facebook and Amazon and even Netflix and Alphabet and Apple that we saw in the last decade plus is replicable.
I think it was an artifact of a very unique time where the internet and the consumer market came together and it happened in a way that I don't know if we're going to see something again.
And then the second thing I would say about it is to the degree that there is going to be somebody who's the next big set of winners, my instinct is that the sleeping giants of Microsoft and Walmart and IBM and SAP, they rebound in a way as these older companies figure out how to kind of live in this new
world. So those are my basic instincts around this.
So you didn't really answer the question, just for the record.
So my way of answering this question is by somewhat cheating a little bit.
Wait, didn't you just accuse me of cheating?
Yeah, but I did it with admiration.
It wasn't a criticism.
So I'm going to go with another consumer giant that's a company called Disney.
So Disney, with the launch of its streaming service, I think has the capacity to completely change the way we think about this company.
We think of it as a media company and I think that's really going to change.
And in addition, I think the way that we value this company is going to change really dramatically over the next two to three years for a bunch of reasons.
So number one, what Disney Plus means is that for the first time, this company will now have a subscription revenue business to augment its current business.
And of course, subscription revenue is so powerful because it changes the way the market values you.
And once your multiple changes, your leverage in the market changes in a really significant way.
The second reason is that for the first time, Disney's going to have ownership and control of a large scale direct -to -consumer database, which will change how they're able to cross -promote, cross -sell, bundle stuff across their entire portfolio of merchandise and theme parks and so on.
This has the potential to turbocharge their larger business model, in other words.
The third reason is that this same database will enable them to get into the artificial intelligence, machine learning, business of behavioral targeting, which will in turn open up new revenue possibilities, including advertising as an option, and then finally, it will also open up new service possibilities.
For example, imagine that their Disney Plus service is so successful among families that they decide to launch a music streaming service for children or something like that.
And then suddenly, they're in the music space.
And so it just opens up, I think, the realm of possibilities for this company in a pretty dramatic way.
And so it wouldn't surprise me if we began talking about Disney in the same breath as these other consumer tech giants over the next few years.
Yeah. Can I add one more?
Yeah. Have you seen the new trailer for Star Wars?
No. Oh my God. That alone is a reason to love Disney.
It'll be amazing. Oh, really?
Yeah. Check it out.
You do. By the way, did you see Avengers Endgame?
I did not. I did not.
You guys, it's so good.
It is? Yeah. It's about 17 hours long.
Half the time you have no idea what's happening.
It's super confusing.
Yes. But it's really, really entertaining.
And I even cried. No.
I did. Oh God. Yes.
Someone died or like cried like as in...
It's touching. Like there are moments when it's touching.
It's incredible. It's incredible.
Even though I was thoroughly confused.
And it's really, really long.
Okay. But Felix, what's your response?
So I also found I think a pretty good way to cheat.
Well, the first thing I was thinking is like, what is it even that makes a company a tech company?
Take a company like Amazon.
Like, what makes Amazon a tech company?
Yeah. So there's a techy part to it.
Like the cloud. But that's 10 % of sales.
So in a way, what I find most interesting about the question is it's almost arbitrary.
It seems to me who gets classified as a tech company and who does not get classified as a tech company.
So what I was thinking about is what is a really big company today that we could be super excited about that uses technology in really interesting ways.
And I think transformative ways.
But we just don't think of them as tech.
And the company that I would pick out is CBS Health.
You probably read after they acquired the insurance company.
And now they decided to create a unified digital organization.
And that I think is so powerful.
So if they really do this well so that you have a digital interface that takes you all the way from your physician experience to then dealing with the insurance company, to then all the aftercare, drugs, everything you can possibly want.
If that is done really well, I think that has enormous potential to change the way we experience health care.
The jury is completely out whether they will be able to create that.
They're not the first one to try to create a seamless experience, right?
And I think it's hard because there's all these legacy systems.
It's hard because there's more regulation than you can possibly imagine.
But if someone does it right, and I don't even know, maybe Walmart gets it right.
I don't know exactly who, but the company that gets this right to really create an interface that actually patients feel, wow, this is really fantastic.
That'll unlock dramatic amounts of value.
I think this goes to this earlier point, which is that I think it's the sleepier, old -line companies who reinvent themselves.
It is the CVS. It is Walmart.
It is Disney. It is some of these other companies who actually stand to benefit from understanding what the tech companies have been able to do, get their kind of valuation uplift, and layer it on top of what is a really unique franchise.
And that is, I think, what's exciting about that, kind of a whole set of players.
We all feel so good about our answers, even though none of us actually technically answered the question.
But it's not our profession.
Yeah, exactly. Okay, guys, this is from a listener from Amsterdam who writes, I hear a lot about how companies and CEOs are too short -term minded.
Instead of focusing on the long -term, they fall victim to managing the company based on short -term quarterly results.
I'm trying to understand why this happens.
Why do CEOs and companies feel pressure to focus on the short -term?
Okay, what do you guys think?
So a question about short -termism.
I think the way to think about it is it is largely a function of investor pressure, which is at the timing of announcements, people are held to their estimates of earnings, and they do get punished when they deviate from them, and that punishment can be severe.
So earnings misses can be associated with large share price drops on the order of 5 or 10%.
And that's puzzling because you miss by a penny, how could it translate into a 10 % drop?
The answer, of course, is A, perhaps short -termism, but B, it's also this underlying problem of capital markets, which is everyone's trying to figure out if the CEOs are good people or bad people.
And when you miss, everyone's kind of thinking, wait a second, you kind of misrepresented what you could do.
My instinct about this is it's largely an overblown concern.
We have lots of examples of maybe the opposite phenomenon.
We're companies that are given enormous latitude to lose money for lots and lots of time and actually not worry about it.
So in general, I think the short -termism chestnut, which has been around for 30 years, is a little bit overblown.
So I don't know, it's hard to buy into it full steam.
I agree with you. I actually think there isn't a ton of evidence for short -termism.
I think there is a lot of natural variance.
So there is short -termism that there's plenty of long -termism as well.
And if you look at companies that have done extremely well in the equity markets over the past couple decades, I mean, Amazon's a great example of a company that was allowed to go for years and years without being profitable because its investors were long -term minded.
We've talked about Uber and its valuation, which is a reflection of, in my opinion anyway, a remarkable amount of wishful thinking about the long -term potential of that company.
And so if you look at both the debt and the equity markets, what you see is that they continue to treat any number of companies well based on beliefs about those companies' long -term prospects.
And by the way, I think it's not that hard to identify companies that are short -term minded.
You see it in their executive compensation, for example.
Right. And I would maybe say it even a little more extreme.
Sometimes my sense is that when people talk about short -termism, they think that the long -term future of companies doesn't really matter in financial markets.
And that is completely wrong.
It's all about the longer -term future of the organizations.
And all we're trying to figure out is can we read from the short -term snippets of new information that we get?
How can we make sense of that thinking about the longer -run performance of the companies?
And the difficulty is actually not so much are we thinking short -term, are we thinking long -term.
The difficulty is that some actions that management takes today could be entirely consistent with this is in the best interest of the company in the long run.
Or could be you're trying to dress up short -term results, because there is a longer -term issue.
And those two things are, I think, often very hard to disentangle.
All right. We have a few more questions, so let's hit these very quickly.
This is a listener from Barcelona.
One of the things I like about listening to your podcast is that I can sometimes sense a shift in your thinking over time.
At a time when people seem more polarized and dogmatic than ever, it's refreshing to know that it's okay to change your mind about a topic as you learn more and you listen to counter arguments.
My question is, what podcast episode generated the most rethinking on your part?
What topic discussed on the podcast have you changed your mind on the most?
It's a nice question.
It's a great question.
It's a great question.
I think I alluded to this a couple of weeks ago, but my thoughts on privacy have really evolved over time.
And it's interesting.
For me, the ripple effect of this is it's made me not only rethink privacy, but I find myself really questioning targeted advertising.
And I'm referring here to behavioral, demographic, psychographic targeting, as opposed to contextual targeting.
And it's made me really question the integrity of that entire business model.
So that would be mine.
For me, and it happened live during these tapings was the me too set up issues that came up during that live taping we did with the reunion.
And then when we revisited it, I don't think I started out super primitive.
But the more I talked about it and the more we honestly shared views, the more I came to really appreciate the gravity of it and the omnipresence of it.
It's something that's really, I think my thinking has really evolved on.
I will just note the one that I have not evolved on is Peloton, by the way.
That's a long term project.
And I'm sticking to my guns on Games of Thrones as well, whatever.
It's hopeless. Game of Thrones.
Sorry, whatever. Felix, did you have one?
Yeah, so I have the privacy issues.
I remember when we talked about the social credit system in China, how both you and I, young me, we were sort of, you know, what's wrong with it?
Like, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, what's the harm with people knowing what you're up to?
And I'm I'm much less sure that my sort of initial intuition, what's the big harm is exactly right.
Yeah, what I love about this question is it's such a great observation that in particular now, I see it in politics all the time, say you run for office today, and then someone finds a tape of you 25 years ago, where you said the exact opposite of what you're saying today.
And then that's supposed to be embarrassing.
In fact, I find it much more embarrassing if you over 25 years you haven't changed your rhetoric one bit, that I find really concerning.
Like, how can it be that you're not evolved?
But it is, we are, I think the listener is right.
We are in this strange world now where saying, Oh my God, I got this totally wrong.
And I so changed my mind.
Somehow that's supposed to be a negative thing, which is strange.
Yeah, I do find that I've had so much practice in learning that I was wrong about something, that I've become really good at handling it.
Yeah, exactly. Yes.
OK, this next question came from so, so many listeners and it's simply, how do you stay informed?
Where do you go to get informed?
How do you stay informed about what's going on in the world?
I don't know a good way to respond to that.
But where do you guys go to get informed, to be intellectually stimulated?
My intuition is that magazines continue to do a very good job, and at least for me, many of them, you know, The Economist, The New Yorker.
What I really love about magazines is they can't compete with Twitter, right?
It's not, Oh, what's the news of the last five seconds?
If you can't compete in news, like what's the advantage that you might have?
And the advantage that you might have is that you have a little bit more depth, you have more time, you do a better job thinking about the background of news stories.
And so I often find when I follow the news second by second by second, I actually find almost nothing all that interesting.
And then when I turn to magazines, I find that, Oh, actually there are bigger shifts.
So I find myself in this sort of social media mediated news world, I find myself gravitating towards magazines more often than I used to.
Yeah, I don't have a good answer either.
I mean, I will say that on the margin, I find that the more interesting ideas are coming from people when I talk to them.
So it's kind of an old fashioned idea, but I find the conversation actually is becoming a bigger generator of new ideas because so much content is common.
What I really value is sitting down with people and especially former students and just talking about what's going on in the local economies and local companies.
Like that has become a more and more important source.
So I don't know, I'm trying to do that more and more.
But that requires leaving your house.
Getting out of your pajamas, exactly.
Yeah. And talking to people.
Well, I'm not sure about the pajamas.
Yeah, that's true. You can still have a relationship with pajamas.
Okay. Again, this next question came from a number of listeners.
What is your best advice on how to express your opinion succinctly and persuasively?
God, I don't know. Here's my only instinct about this question, which is the mistake most people make is they think that this is an opportunity to demonstrate their learning or to demonstrate their knowledge or to show off what they know and think.
And it's not about you, which is the hardest lesson in life.
You know, it's about the listener.
I think too often in these situations, we get confused and make this into an exercise of intellectual showmanship where you're like trying to show off how much you know, that's not what persuasion is about.
Persuasion is about getting into the shoes of the other person and it's an active empathy.
And so think hard about what that other person is thinking and meet them where they are.
Great advice, Felix.
I think there is an interesting link to our classroom.
So in MBA teaching, at least there's 93 people in the room and you have 80 minutes for a conversation.
And so you have to be really good at contributing to the conversation in a relatively short period of time.
No one loves the student who, you know, uses up five minutes of his or her time to make a point.
And so a lot of it is just practice.
I mean, in meetings, every time you speak, ask yourself at the end of when you made a contribution, could I have said it in a simpler way?
Could I have said it in a shorter way?
And I think over time, you will find if you pay attention to that, that yes, we can get much better than we are naturally.
I don't really have anything to add to that, except for maybe I think it's important when you express an opinion, when you come out as so dogmatic, so convinced of your own logic, what you end up doing is putting a stake in the ground and making it really difficult for somebody to traverse over to your
side. On the other hand, if you somehow find a softer way to express what you're feeling and you can do it with great passion and energy and conviction, but still come up with some kind of mechanism where you're communicating that you are really invested in the possibility that you could be really wrong
and you're invested in listening to the counter -argument, then I think you leave open the possibility for a conversation that goes deeper and deeper and deeper, as opposed to one that becomes more and more polarized.
I always treasure when I meet a colleague or a friend who does that with me and when they engage with me, they have a point of view, but they make it really easy for me to engage with them.
Those are the people I learned the most from.
So I guess that would be my advice.
Okay. Final question.
Again, we got this from a number of listeners who wanted to know what are final thoughts on Game of Thrones?
I'll give you my final thought, which is hallelujah.
Hallelujah is my final thought.
Um, Felix. The very last episode I thought was such a letdown.
I think expectations, you know, were of course sky high.
Maybe there was no version of the show that could have met all of these expectations, but what it lost, which actually quite surprised me was emotionality, a show that elicited so many different emotions along the way to then have a final episode where it felt very much like, Oh my God, we have another
15 minutes to end the story.
And here's how we're going to tell the ending.
And so that was less than I expected.
I had mixed feelings like you, but here's what I will say the last season for all of its flaws, which I think have been really well -documented, it still managed to give us some of the most spectacular television in the history of television.
So some of the battle scenes, for example, oh, the battle at King's Landing.
I mean, there are these moments that were just so visually unprecedented.
I mean, really just spectacular, spectacular television.
And then the one other thing I will say is, oh my God, Daenerys Breaking Bad was just one of the hardest things, hardest things to internalize as a viewer.
I feel vindicated. I feel vindicated.
Daenerys Broke Bad at the end.
Unbelievable. Anyway.
All right. Okay. Recommendations, Felix.
There is an organization located in Cambridge actually called the National Bureau of Economic Research.
It's an old nonprofit organization, uh, dedicated to mostly economic research.
But I think for our purposes more practical is that it's a group of economists and they share their ongoing work with one another in the form of working papers.
And if you're curious about economics, anything from how should we think about changes in productivity in the Chinese economy to what's the cheapest way to combat climate warming, if you're interested in getting the view of economists in the form of working papers that are not peer reviewed yet, I was just
struck how many questions I saw that listeners sent in where I thought, oh my God, there's an NBR working paper that looks at exactly that kind of an issue.
So that's a nice thing.
If you're interested in economics research, that's a nice thing to explore.
That's a great recommendation.
I totally second and third that as a, as a member.
So absolutely. So my recommendation this week is a behavioral recommendation.
So I had recently one of those travel weeks that ended up being planes, trains, and automobiles, and it started with my having to get on one of those buses that bust you out to the plane.
You're supposed to be boarding.
Brutal. So it was a packed, packed bus and I was one of the last people on and I got on.
And so I'm standing there and right before the door closes, this very elderly couple, they very gingerly step onto the bus and they're sort of squeezed in there.
And it's one of those moments where you're just absolutely bewildered by the fact that nobody is giving up their seat for this couple, to the point where there was actually this one woman who was standing next to me.
She nudged these younger people in front of her and she said, Hey, you guys should give them their seat.
And then they sheepishly stood up and they gave this couple their seat.
So my recommendation is very simple and part of this is self -interested because as I get older, I would like to think that when I'm super elderly and I'm struggling in public transportation, someone will give me a seat.
But if you see someone that appears to be having a hard time or might be a little bit frail, then just stand up and give them your seat.
So I know when I grew up, it was, it was a matter of course, if you were, you know, even like a very young kid, you would never, ever occupy a seat if an adult was standing.
But now I see maybe these norms have changed.
Similarly, when I was growing up, it was just normative to stand up.
If you saw someone who was pregnant or if you saw someone who is struggling in any way, you would just give them your seat.
I don't know if as a society we've changed, I don't know what's going on.
Part of it is also self -absorption, right?
So if you're on a device, for example, I see people get lost in devices and they're not even paying attention to their surroundings, which may be part of it as well.
That's not an excuse, but I think that's part of what happens.
Anyway, so that's my recommendation to always be aware of your surroundings and particularly be aware if there's someone around you that looks to be a little bit vulnerable in any way.
And if so, let that protective instinct come out from inside you and take care of the people around you.
That's my recommendation.
Me here. So I have a much more selfish recommendation.
Okay. I was at a lovely, lovely wedding.
And one of the functions I was at the bar and I stood behind a woman and she ordered a drink, which I now recommend to everybody as my summer recommendation.
You might remember last summer, it was the affogato, the espresso, which was probably my best recommendation ever.
And so this time I want to recommend a drink I had for the first time.
And now I've had a couple of times since then, which is a dirty gin martini, which is a gin martini with olive juice in it.
And the saltiness of the olive juice really changes.
This was the first time you had a dirty gin martini.
Well, no, because I've always had, you know, I'll tell you the truth, which is that I have been off of gin for a long time because I had kind of was actually having vodka martinis.
And then once in a while I have a gin martini and now I had a dirty gin martini.
And my recommendation is the dirty gin martini is the great summer drink for you to revisit.
If you've kind of grown up and you avoided it, now you are of the age and you are ready to revisit the dirty gin martini.
And I recommended highly that briny aspect of the olives just changes the drink.
And that is my summer recommendation for you.
Your summer will be better off because of it.
Start the meal with the dirty martini, end it with the affogato and you'll be living large.
That's a great recommendation.
Okay, that's it. Those are recommendations.
Once again, thank you all so much for sending in your letters and your email.
It's been incredible.
But thank you. This is after hours from the HBR Podcast Network.
I love vodka martinis.
I don't. Yeah, you got to go back.
No, no, try it. When was the last time you tried?
Because I had gone off the gin thing and I was doing vodka, but it's not the real deal.
I mean, my drink, my go to is the dirty Grey Goose martini.
That's my drink. Is it?
Yeah, that's the one.
Do with gin. It is really expected.
Yeah. All right. I do love the really briny.
It's a briny. It's so good.
It's so good.
