Hello, my name is Laura Beyer. I'm the head of brand partnerships at TED.
I'm also a graduate of Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, where I joined a diverse and globally connected network of business leaders dedicated to building a meaningful legacy. My transformative time inside and outside the classroom provided me with the knowledge and skills to address complex issues and identify new opportunities in the workplace. I engaged with the Georgetown community in ways that sharpened my strategic, analytical, and communication skills.
I'm now connected with accomplished alumni who support one another's personal and professional journeys. When I finished my master's program, I was ready to excel in business and make an impact on society, which I've been able to accomplish here at TED. You can earn a master's degree that fits your future. Build your legacy with Georgetown McDonough. Visit msb.georgetown.edu slash TED.
To make switching to the new Boost Mobile risk-free, we're offering a 30-day money-back guarantee. So why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T-Mobile? Because you have nothing to lose. Boost Mobile is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee. No, I asked why wouldn't you switch from Verizon or T-Mobile. Oh. Wouldn't. Uh...
Because you love wasting money as a way to punish yourself because your mother never showed you enough love as a child? Whoa, easy there. Yeah.
Bombas makes the most comfortable socks, underwear, and t-shirts. Warning, Bombas are so absurdly comfortable you may throw out all your other clothes. Sorry, do we legally have to say that? No, this is just how I talk and I really love my Bombas. They do feel that good and they do good too. One item purchased equals one item donated. To feel good and do good, go to bombas.com slash ACAST and use code ACAST for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S dot com slash ACAST and use code ACAST at checkout.
Hello, After Hours listeners. Felix here. After Hours is still on a break, but we wanted to bring back an episode from the archives we think you'll still find relevant. Let us know what you think. And as always, thank you for listening. ♪
Okay, Felix, you've been following this hesitancy around TikTok, but now actually some outright bans of TikTok in India and for people who use U.S. government phones. What are your thoughts on what's happening with TikTok and why has this struck you as an especially interesting story to start 2023? Well, of course, if I'm totally honest, I will say...
I'm mostly worried about myself because I'm such an enthusiastic user of TikTok. But then, of course, it poses really all kinds of interesting issues. The first one has to do with sharing data across national borders. You might remember this was such a big issue when EU privacy legislation first came along. Companies had to adopt in all kinds of ways to make sure that they were in compliance.
And then more lately, there's sort of this security twist. Any data that China can touch now seem very problematic to a group of lawmakers. Just a week ago, Brendan Carr, the leading Republican representative on the FCC, he said that India...
created the blueprint. You just cannot allow apps like TikTok to operate. And the argument is basically that one way or another, the Chinese government will be able to get access to U.S. data, will be able to observe what U.S. users do on the app. And that is, at least in some circles, deemed irresponsible, deemed dangerous. And as a result, we need a TikTok ban.
And I'm curious, what do you make of it, Sarah? Is it going to work? Is it real? Will it happen? I think it's...
very interesting as part of a larger trend. TikTok is the most successful example of an app that really takes off with users that then later regulators and other people come along and say, oh, wait a minute, there's some security concerns there. So one example from a few years ago was an app called FaceApp, which turned out to be a Russian app where you would upload photos and they would age them so you could get an early look of what you looked like as an old person. And
There have been other apps like this, too. More recently, last month, there was just Lensa AI, which was another app that altered your facial appearance. And after these images of people with the face of an astronaut or the face of a woodland fairy had sort of gone viral, people said, wait a minute.
in an era where your face is often a password to get into your phone. Maybe you don't want to have this data just be shared in the cloud and you can't really ever be sure that it's fully deleted.
I think in the case of TikTok, there is this extra layer of the Chinese government and how the U.S. relationship with the Chinese government has evolved over the last few years. Yeah, I think that sounds exactly right. And India is leading the way in that respect also. There are a little more than 300 apps now that are banned in India now.
It happened right after the military clashes between Chinese and Indian forces. All of this takes place in a geopolitical context. What strikes me as particularly interesting is when people talk about the security concerns
It's always incredibly vague. It's like, oh, somehow we have data and somehow the Chinese know something about the U.S. users. It's worth drilling down a little bit. What is it actually that you give away when you use apps like TikTok? So the most obvious is what you watch, how long you watch, who you follow, etc.
in TikTok's case, maybe not such a big deal because the main mode of using the app is not that you actually follow people, but that the app's algorithms figures out what you really like. And then as a result, we serve you lots and lots of content that is close to what you like.
And as I look through the data, the only one where I can imagine that there is some real concern is probably geolocation. So imagine a situation where someone's close to an abortion clinic, where someone is close to an embassy. Actually, knowing in real time where people are is more of a problem than many of us had spent a lot of time thinking about. I think what you're also seeing is just a sort of increasing paranoia that is not necessarily...
tied to any specific use of data or articulated use of data, but that's coming from a sense that we can't always trust that these apps are just what they say that they are. Can we definitely know that there's not some kind of spyware or keystroke tracking or microphone manipulating or camera manipulating aspect of these different apps? We always say trust, but verify. And I feel like the challenge here is with verifying how these things work.
We're sort of entering, I think, a different phase of the Internet. I used to think it was crazy that people put tape over the cameras of their computer. And then I saw a photo of Mark Zuckerberg with tape over the camera of his computer. And I was like, apparently I'm a chump if he's doing it. There are two interesting aspects to me. From a company perspective, you don't want to give away the secret sauce.
The way TikTok serves the videos and the way they use user information, that is part of what has made the app so enjoyable and what has invited all the creativity and the memes. What helps me is to always think about, say, national security concerns. Is the data that a particular app has...
How unique is it? So say China at some point in time really decided that using geolocation of US users is something that they wanted to look into, maybe to have some sort of influence over people. That, I think, is often the scariest story that people will tell about the likely use of the data. And then when you think about it for two minutes, there is a huge marketplace for geo-information.
We know that the U.S. government buys geolocation data from private users. A little while back, there were two apps, Muslim Pro and Muslim Mingle, that sold app to a data broker called Xmode. Xmode sold it to defense contractors, and from these defense contractors, it then went to the government and the military. So the very fear that we have, that we don't want our government and other governments to know,
There is a huge marketplace for this kind of information in the first place. And so I feel the current conversation about the ban of TikTok is one of these performative acts in politics. It has nothing to do or almost nothing to do with, A, keeping us safe.
It has almost nothing to do with really being concerned for anyone's welfare. It's just you want to be known as the politician who stood up to China. You want to be known as the politician who's really tough on social media.
It creates a kind of superficial conversation that you look at it and none of this really makes any sense. But of course, it serves political purposes first and foremost. Yeah, I totally agree with politics. There's always an element of performance. You're always playing to the crowd. It's impossible to really separate the geopolitical context from politics.
this debate because we do feel like we're in a very different time. You know, I was remembering 10, 15 years ago, there was all this hype about the BRICS and how these emerging markets were like such a great opportunity for firms from wealthy countries to sell products and services to. And now Russia and China have a very different relationship with the U.S. We're in a more paranoid time generally. There is grandstanding, but I'm also aware that there might also be real stakes here, too.
To me, what's so interesting about this change that you allude to, Briggs is a great example. If you went to Washington and you were really critical of China, you'd be all by yourself. Now you go to Washington, you say anything positive about the China-U.S. relationship, and you are all by yourself. And many people will look at you with great skepticism. And when you think about the relationship, not that much has changed.
And many things have actually gotten much better over time. Think about the likelihood of enforcing IP rights in China. Oh my God, we have made so much progress in a relatively short period of time. China has recognized IP rights now not in a perfect way. I think no one would say that. But it's made much more progress in a much shorter time period than
than many countries have historically, including the U.S., where it took forever to recognize, say, for instance, copyright of foreign authors. What worries me the most is it sometimes feels a little bit like an Iraq moment, where we're talked into a paranoia that,
serves mostly domestic political purposes on both sides. It's all tangled up together. And I think it's something that I'm relieved is not my job to figure out. I think what I would find much better than the way we're doing it right now is that we had clear rules of what companies can and cannot do. So for instance, if you said,
Geolocation data is just not something that should be available to government. And we have rules in the US and those same rules we apply to any foreign government. And that would then imply that you shut down the market for geolocation information. It is no longer legal to sell geolocation information.
Because today, when every government can easily buy all the geolocation information you want on the open market, it's just not very credible to say we're shutting down that one way you might be able to get it. So be really sincere and be really open in what the rules are, what you can and what you cannot do. And then let the market play out within a set of guidelines that all companies have to follow.
The moment it's directed at particular companies from particular countries that we happen not to be so enamored with at this moment in time, things just get very murky. And I have a little more difficult to believe that it's really motivated by welfare considerations for everyone. That's a fair point. I feel sort of...
obligated to also point out China has blocked a number of U.S. technology companies and has the sort of great firewall of China limiting what you can have access to when you're in the country. And we in the U.S. view that as also a terrible thing. Yeah, exactly. That's a fabulous point. And I think it should mean...
That's exactly not something that we're going to do. We'll figure out a better way to regulate these companies. Maybe we'll see with some of the tech layoffs that have been happening in the U.S. tech sector, maybe some of those really smart people can go help the government understand how all this technology really works. Because sometimes you have these congresspeople standing up and railing about the new app or this or that phone thing. And I'm thinking, you probably don't really know much about this.
Yeah, spend a little time on TikTok. I think that might be good advice for policymakers and for the rest of humanity. Well, I am a little bit less afraid than when we started. Good. That is huge progress in just 15 minutes. Hello, my name is Laura Beyer. I'm the head of brand partnerships at TED.
I'm also a graduate of Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, where I joined a diverse and globally connected network of business leaders dedicated to building a meaningful legacy. My transformative time inside and outside the classroom provided me with the knowledge and skills to address complex issues and identify new opportunities in the workplace. I engaged with the Georgetown community in ways that sharpened my strategic, analytical, and communication skills.
I'm now connected with accomplished alumni who support one another's personal and professional journeys. When I finished my master's program, I was ready to excel in business and make an impact on society, which I've been able to accomplish here at TED. You can earn a master's degree that fits your future. Build your legacy with Georgetown McDonough. Visit msb.georgetown.edu slash TED.
Work management platforms. Ugh. Endless onboarding, IT bottlenecks, admin requests. But what if things were different? We found love.
Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding. Beautiful reports in minutes. Custom workflows you can build on your own. Easy to use, prompt-free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.
Hey, it's Mark Maron from WTF here to let you know that this podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. And I'm sure the reason you're listening to this podcast right now is because you chose it.
Well, choose Progressive's Name Your Price tool, and you could find insurance options that fit your budget so you can pick the best one for your situation. Who doesn't like choice? Try it at Progressive.com. And now, some legal info. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
So Lane, college sports and making money as an amateur. What's going on? It's a brave new world out there. As of 2021, athletes can sign endorsement deals. That started off with the slow trickle of seeing offensive linemen strike deals with barbecue restaurants where they would get like $200 worth of meat.
Right.
As of July 1st, 2021, the NCAA changed its rules to allow athletes to make money off of their name, image, and likeness. And we'll just call that NIL. To add to the sports abbreviations, which are so rare that we absolutely have to add a few more. Don't have enough of them. All right, NIL. Yes, NIL. That often means that someone who might have...
a $10,000 donation to the school that they might previously have given to the athletic department, which the athletic department can then designate at their will, might be giving it directly and lining the pocket of a quarterback.
a quarterback because they want a good recruit. And the thinking goes, the more money you have coming in, the better recruits you're going to get. The better recruits you get, the better you are at the sport. You look at a school like Alabama and Clemson, the way that their football team's having success on the national stage, and that increased donations to the school. It increased out-of-state applications. It increased enrollment. So that's one thing I'm curious about. Are we going to see football teams better? Are we going to see other sports marginalized? Yeah.
Yeah, I think this is completely a fascinating lane. And as you laid out, it's a shift in the balance of power away from universities and tour athletes,
Athletes historically were getting nothing out of this game, which was minting money for the institutions. I confess it's hard not to feel good about all that. But the second dynamic that you're highlighting, I think, is the shift of power towards donors. Donors now can target things in ways they couldn't target things before. The swimming team was getting some of the football revenue and the left guard was getting some benefits that the quarterback would otherwise get. And all of that sharing is under pressure.
The rewards go to the most visible, the most celebrated, the superstars. I don't know, Felix, what do you make of it? So I completely agree. The fairness argument is just super strong. And frankly, that implies that some sports completely disappear or get much smaller because
In my view, that's not really terrible. We just see the market forces operating. It's just like the rest of the economy. If there isn't really much demand, if there isn't really much enthusiasm, why keep it up?
That's spot on. But the reason why there's pressure on keeping the fringe sports is the Olympics, because those are such a cash cow for NBC. But also the U.S. and other countries take some pride in topping the medal table. And you're not going to do that unless you have some pretty good fencers. And because the U.S. is unique in the
the way its amateur sports system is set up, pretty much every other country in the world has a state-funded development program for athletes. In the U.S., that doesn't exist. That's college sports. Honestly, I'd never really thought about that. But it makes sense, which is the U.S. is unique in that we basically use college athletics to become a breeding ground for everything. In one hand, I guess I think that's better if it were outside of the college athletic system.
that we are including fencing or swimming for the purposes of building Olympic strength seems like a contortion. It's interesting to think about how the Olympics might change in a world where college sport doesn't train athletes for the rest of the world. So I would predict sports at the margin of
Maybe we don't quite see the performance that we would have seen in the olden days. And does that really matter so much? What I love about the Olympics is I watch all these sports that I barely know what it's all about. And frankly, is my enjoyment going to be impacted by stellar performances or performances that are 85% of what's possible? I don't really think so. I want to just return to one thing you asked at the beginning, Lane.
You have athletes who are conceivably going to get distracted by the amount of dollars that they're going to be coming in. So the interesting outcome might also be that these supposedly winning sports, football, basketball, at the collegiate level,
will they get better or might they actually get worse? There's an interesting case study that I think is still unfolding, and that's Texas A&M. Jimbo Fisher is one of the highest paid coaches in college football, and Texas A&M as an alumni base is also one of the most well-endowed in terms of money and also willingness to throw money at football. Put it that way. And they had a recruiting class that was the top in the nation, which is the first time that it
that the top school in a recruiting class has not been Alabama or Georgia in something like two decades. And what was interesting is Texas A&M famously this year was quite bad at football. They did not even make a bowl game. That's just an abomination by Aggie standards.
And additionally, they also had the largest percentage of their class transfer out of anyone in the country. And I would have to think that some of that has to do with maybe the reason why you went to a school is because of an NIL deal that was lured your way and you get there and you don't like it. Or maybe you realize this isn't the right place for me. And obviously, kids pick schools for a zillion different reasons, money being one of them. But
it's hard to turn down a million dollars when you're 17. And I got to think that that's something that's happening here. That's true. Yes. This was a really great topic, particularly because Felix is in the middle of negotiating his own NIL deal right now, as I understand. Yes. Maybe that's worth a conversation with the president. There you go.
So Mihir, you wanted to talk about the valuation of sports teams. Obviously, finance professor has got to talk about valuation. So let me just first ask you both. Okay, Infinite Resources, what team do you buy? Oh, gosh. I think you could look at a team that you know is going to appreciate in value and
I would do a women's sport, either women's soccer because of the global appeal or women's basketball in the U.S. Or if you're trying to buy a team that already has incredible brand reach and recognition around the globe, I might do the Yankees. I'd like the Yankees more than the Mets. I thought I liked you, Lane, as a co-host, but I'm questioning that right now. But anyway, go ahead, Felix. Who would you buy? Well,
Well, of course, since I teach at a business school, my decisions are completely determined by nostalgia. I would buy the Philadelphia Eagles because I have such fun memories of moving to Philadelphia, seeing American football for the first time live. And I think...
I think somehow it's maybe like your undergrad experience. You will never forget that first life encounter that you have with an institution or with a sports team. So go Eagles. Wow. I thought I liked you too, but apparently not. How about you be here? I was going to go the Ryan Reynolds route, buy some third class Premier League team like the Wrexham team and build it. But the reason I ask all this is because the valuation of sports teams has just been amazing. So...
Up until about 20 years ago, the joke was, what's the easiest way to become a millionaire? Was you start a multimillionaire and then you buy a sports team and you lose your money. And of course, the last 25 years have been the exact opposite, which is what's the easiest way to become a billionaire? Which is you start a multimillionaire and you buy sports teams. And we have never seen such rapid returns. Teams that have changed hands include Chelsea and Denver Broncos and the Phoenix Suns. And they're all changing hands at four or five billion dollars.
That's remarkably high by most objective kinds of financial metrics. Just to give you one example, Chelsea, when it was owned by Romovich, a million dollars of losses per week were being funded by the owner. There are lots of theories about why valuations have exploded. TV rights have just grown so massively in importance that they are getting remarkable amounts of revenue streams from that.
Alternatively, it's quasi monopolistic. There's like huge barriers to coming in. Or the other view of the world is it's just a lot of crazy billionaires running around being little boys buying their favorite sports teams. I'm curious, what do you make of those explanations and of these valuations?
My sense is that it's mostly a vanity play. Everyone has a private jet. Everyone has yachts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And then how else are you going to stand out?
And what's really attractive about sports teams is the flip of the antitrust angle that you brought up, Mihir. We know the number of teams is in all likelihood completely fixed, or if it should ever expand, it's not going to expand so radically. If you're in a position to buy one of these teams, you know you have something that not many other people will have. For me, really, the big question is,
Are there downsides to that kind of competition among super rich people? Is it somehow true that, say, ticket prices go up? Or is it somehow true that cities are forced into transactions where they build really expensive stadiums? If there's no downsides, it's competition among the super wealthy and super
I'm not going to be part of it and I don't know that I care all that much. Right. What do you make of it, Lane? It does strike me a little bit as like you're...
image of two kids arguing on the playground why I have a million dollars why I have a billion dollars why I have a trillion everyone just assumes that this is an asset that will always appreciate as we're in this era of cord cutting live sports is one of the only draws that reliably does get viewers and NFL is king of ratings however is there a tipping point with that
I don't know if this means that someone like Stan Kroenke that owns a zillion franchises is ever going to sell. But you have to think that at some point there's diminishing returns. What's your take, Mihir? I think it's conceivable that these are vanity purchases and yet really smart opportunities as well. I just think both of those things are possible. So the first piece is obviously in the Premier League we see sovereign nations coming in.
And with large amounts of capital and they make any billionaire look small and they are willing to pay because they're not getting the boyish victory of like, oh, I own the team I rooted for. They're getting credibility on world stages and that's worth a lot. And then I think the deepest point is your point, Felix, which is these folks are economic actors. Right.
And they will find ways to get returns on their investment. And that could involve lots of different things. It's of course true that TV rights play a big role in the economic calculation. But why is it that these TV rights are so much more valuable? If you look at Pele's lifetime income and then you look at Ronaldo's lifetime income...
The fascinating comparison is on a per television basis, they're almost making the same amount of money.
So my sense is the media rights are so much more valuable now because it's a global audience. Where do people watch Premier League? Well, we're paying so much attention to what happens in the stadium, but really we should look to Malaysia, Indonesia, all of Asia. The TV rights have become so valuable because we have a really global audience for a subset of sports. And that I think by and large has played out.
I don't believe the underlying forces will make teams ever more valuable. I'm going to take the opposite side. Okay. I don't think the globalization thing has played out. I don't think the Premier League is deeply penetrated in the U.S. I mean, there's a lot of room to run on that. But we'll see. And I will alert the NFL that you folks are no longer interested, and I'll have to go along. And we will talk to your banker to see if we can get that $3.5 billion credit line. Yeah, there we go.
Felix, you had mentioned earlier that you were interested in the economics of tennis and how it's kind of skewed towards the top of the top. Yes, it's so interesting and surprising to me also because tennis comes across as this really glamorous sport and you associate it with all of these luxury goods and the big deals. The reality of tennis for most professional tennis players is that it's basically unsustainable. If you're outside the top 200,
there is no way you can even cover the cost of being a professional tennis player. So many of these tennis players struggle to hire a professional coach. And that is remarkably different from other sports. If you take the NHL, for instance, there are 700 players
There's a minimum salary of $700,000 and the reality is that most players make more than a million. So the split between overall revenues and how much goes to the individual players is just radically different. When you look at what fraction of that total pool goes to the top players,
Unless you think you're going to break into the top 50 or the top 40, any sort of business logic would say you should stay away from tennis. And I'm curious to think through what's good about the state of affairs in tennis, what's problematic, and then in particular, what could we do in order to create a better situation for those professional tennis players? Yeah.
One thing that tennis does really well and almost better than any other sport is gender equity. Because of the efforts of Billie Jean King and her peers years ago, we have a point where the women's prize money is almost on the same foot as the men's. But there's been such dominance at the top by the big three on the men's side and by Serena Williams on the women's side that I think that has contributed to this effect of concentrating the wealth in fewer hands.
Maybe if there was more parity, there would be a little bit more money distributed. But that's probably still only amongst like the top 10, 15 players. To your point about 50 to 200, that's a whole different issue. And it's hard to think about how you would go about changing this because there's not a union in which they bargain these guarantees because it is an individual sport.
And it also makes me wonder, when you have someone like Jessica Pegula, nothing against her athleticism. She's obviously a great tennis player, but she also is a scion of very wealthy people. And I wonder how much that's contributed to her ability to rise to that level. What do you think of me here? Yeah, that's fascinating, Lane. I mean, harkening back, Felix, to our conversation about unpaid labor a little bit, about who gets to
Yeah.
First off, it feels like just inherently the nature of individual sports as opposed to team sports. And it kind of harkens back to our NIL conversation, which is part of what happens is you share the rents in these team sports. So like Tom Brady is great and the left tackle gets paid a little bit more because Tom Brady is part of the team. And that feels like something that happens in team sports. I can't imagine the dynamic that would allow that to persist into individual sports. So tennis to me feels like golf.
which I think I would imagine would have a very similar distribution of outcomes. You know, again, being the 75th player on the golf certificate, I think it's hard. So I don't see it as a problem. And if anything, I think of tennis as a great success story over the last 30 years for reasons you mentioned, Lane, about gender equity, but maybe because of the power of the talent, because of who Serena is and Roger Federer and all these really remarkable people. I think of tennis as a success. Is it a hard success?
situation for the folks who are 75th on the circuit? Yeah, maybe. But I don't know if that's a problem. I don't know. What do you think, Felix? I do think there's an interesting organizational angle to this story. So if you look at the ATP, the main representative body for players, what's
One of the really big issues is that it's split between the tournaments and the players who are both represented by the same organization. And that, of course, is a conflict of interest right there because the tournaments obviously have every interest to keep the player share small and have most of the benefits go to the very top players because that's what creates the excitement, the audience, the high ticket prices, etc.
That strikes me as not a natural outcome and actually not having really to do with the fact that tennis is an individual sport. Yeah.
It does strike me that there is a lot of untangling of conflicts of interest that there could be done in tennis. And whether that's through some sort of organization of players or just some intermediate body that's deciding, not the ITA, but something that's deciding, OK, U.S. Open, this is the cut for operations. This is the cut for players and not the operating body. That does seem like that should be.
I don't know how you go about convincing the U.S. Open to relinquish that because who wants to give up power and money when they have it? One element that strikes me worth thinking about is what this means for young people who think about a potential career in sports. Yeah.
About 2% of college athletes make it into the pro leagues. The probabilities are really, really low. You shouldn't really think by playing college football you have a reasonable chance. And what's troubling about this is that the
The expectations when you look at surveys of young people are completely misguided. It's worse in basketball and in ice hockey where 75% of college players say it's somewhat likely that they will have a pro career. And of course, spreading money around and making it easier to sustain some sort of a professional life is
would only further misguide the kids to think that this is an actual career and that this would actually be a way to make a living. It's not. Yeah, that's fascinating. I got to say the final piece of this story that I love is that
Bill Ackman, hedge fund icon, has decided to take on the cause of organizing the players and has started, I think it's going to be a for-profit winners alliance or something like that. And just the irony of a hedge fund titan going to the streets and saying, workers of the world unite is, I think, pretty fantastic. Hello, my name is Laura Beyer. I'm the head of brand partnerships at TEDD.
I'm also a graduate of Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, where I joined a diverse and globally connected network of business leaders dedicated to building a meaningful legacy. My transformative time inside and outside the classroom provided me with the knowledge and skills to address complex issues and identify new opportunities in the workplace. I engaged with the Georgetown community in ways that sharpened my strategic, analytical, and communication skills.
I'm now connected with accomplished alumni who support one another's personal and professional journeys. When I finished my master's program, I was ready to excel in business and make an impact on society, which I've been able to accomplish here at TED. You can earn a master's degree that fits your future. Build your legacy with Georgetown McDonough. Visit msb.georgetown.edu slash TED.
Are you still quoting 30-year-old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you still think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide.
And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now. It pays to discover. Learn more at discover.com slash credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report. My dad works in B2B marketing. He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man. Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.
My friend's still laughing at me to this day. Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to linkedin.com slash results to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. LinkedIn, the place to be, to be.