tv Best of Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg August 11, 2019 7:00am-8:00am EDT
♪ emily: i'm emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg technology." coming up, this week, two mass shootings in the u.s. left dozens dead. president trump has called on social media companies to do more to identify mass shooters before they strike. one of the gunmen posted a manifesto online. we talk with ellen pao, the former ceo of reddit. plus, uber and lyft post earnings.
turning a profit, and we will break it down. and fedex drops amazon. the delivery giant says it will not renew its contract as the online retailer expands its own shipping and logistics game. we talked to one of the founding members of fedex ground. first, uber came out with second-quarter results, investors looking for signs they will eventually become profitable. did they succeed? i asked our guests. >> we see multiple ways that management can move towards profitability. we see near-term drivers in the form of reducing driver and rider promotions and incentives. we also think they are things the management teams can do in terms of reducing market expenses and insurance costs to help move the company toward profitability in the near to
midterm. longer-term, we see additional upside in the move toward autonomy as being a key component in reducing costs and moving companies more toward profitability. emily: except that autonomy is just so far out. tom, uber said the losses would decline next year. both have indicated the price wars would subside. but why do you have different ratings on uber and lyft? neutral on uber, buy on lyft. tom: first of all, thanks for having me. look, our neutral view on uber really just comes down to limited visibility. you know, this is a company fighting a lot of battles on a lot of fronts. on one hand, they have the big balance sheet and the scale to probably outlast a lot of the players it is competing with. on the negative side, it is reacting and responding to a lot of the aggressive promotional activity from some of the
ridesharing players and some of the online food delivery players it is fighting with. it creates a situation where it is harder to get comfortable with forecasting the financials. we think it is probably pretty challenging for the management team themselves, to give investors a clear and specific and precise 12-month view of where the financials are going to be. our ratings are based on a 12 to 18 month time horizon and we think the visibility and the share gains in the north american ridesharing market are -- market kind of take it over the edge. emily: so, asad, let's talk about food delivery, because on the call, uber has been focusing on the competition not just in ride-hailing but in food delivery, seeming to indicate that is the super competitive part of the business now. obviously, uber eats has competitors not just in the united states but different competitors globally. what is your outlook for uber
eats and how it can boost or not boost the business going forward? asad: i think this quarter's results really speak to just how competitive the food delivery landscape is, not just domestically, but internationally. uber eats is competing with a whole host of competitors that are really well-funded. companies like door dash and postmates that have received large amounts of funding from deep-pocketed investors like softbank who are not afraid to go after the market in a big way and seek revenue and user-based growth. but that is to the detriment of profitability in the near to midterm and that is hurting companies like uber which is facing so much pressure from investors to show a clear pathway to profitability. in the near-term, we are encouraged by some positive signs we see. if you look at the take rate, which is the commission that uber takes on growth transactions within food
delivery, we have seen that trend upwards over the past three quarters, sequentially. that is something we are encouraged by. we are also incrementally more positive based on signs of consolidation in the space with their rival door dash acquiring caviar. we think that is a positive development and one we hope to see more of. emily: uber's rival lyft also posted earnings this week. investor confidence was posted. they posted $11 billion in sales -- $3.4 billion in sales compared to the average analyst estimates of $3.2 billion. but immediate enthusiasm was dampened by the decision allowing shareholders to sell earlier than anticipated. the lock now ending august 19. i got perspective from one of the earlier investors, oceanic partner tim sullivan.
>> there is a stock unit plan that is causing this to be moved up from september 24 to august 19. so it is coming off and we are not selling. we are in it for the long haul. emily: why? >> we believe the managers are doing a great job day-to-day. obviously, the numbers were phenomenal. the projections were $810 million. $867 million top line. so i think they are doing a great job not only managing expectations, but beating expectations. that is great for wall street. emily: they did lose their coo and they are not going to replace that person. they are going to fill the job in other ways. from a management perspective, is that a concern? >> no. i think john cymer has been the
coo since the beginning. the fact out. -- deaf active. de facto. emily: the president and cofounder. >> right. having somebody come in and duplicate his effort did not make sense. same thing going on at uber. they lost their coo because dara is trying to play more of a hands-on role. emily: does the lockup ending concern you and all of the shares hitting the market even as the share prices down? >> i think that is just the way things are these days. with unicorns going public that many shares hitting the market, we have seen over and over with every company, the stock takes a pretty significant hit when those shares hit the market. people are hungry for liquidity, and when they have the opportunity, they take it. emily: let's talk about the future.
if lyft vs. uber has been price wars, almost as long as they have been in existence, getting the lowest price meeting lower revenue and less incentive for drivers, is there an end to that? >> i think we are still in early days and have a long way to go. but i think we will see less drivers and those drivers making more money. emily: why less drivers? >> the business model is geared towards full-time drivers. you are going to see less of those in the future. emily: less drivers making more money, do the companies themselves still make more? >> the take rates go up and the companies make more money. emily: what does that mean for the competition long-term? is it more about the brand? >> i have always thought there
was room for a coke and a pepsi in the ride-hailing space. it's incredibly disruptive, it is a huge market and it is in early days, there is still growth to come. room for both lyft and uber. emily: coming up, another mass shooting and another white nationalist manifesto finds its way to the darkest corners of the internet. we look at what can be done to fight online extremists next. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, on the app, and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
murderer's manifesto on the messaging platform 8chan. this, before the attacks. this shooter gunned down at least 22 people in el paso, texas, posting his a racist creed 20 minutes before the first emergency call came in. the same thing happened with the mosque shootings in christchurch, new zealand and in the california synagogue shooting in april. now, the founder is saying enough is enough, telling the new york times "shut the site down, it's not doing the world any good. it is a negative to everybody except the users who are there and it's a negative to them too." president trump weighed in, blaming mental illness, the press, video games, and social media. to discuss, i wanted to speak to someone intimately familiar to trying to clean up the internet. ellen pao is the ceo of project include, and before that, ceo at reddit where she tried to clean
up the site. >> there are many things to blame, and social media is a big part of it. the founders were very naive, or maybe just lazy in allowing the platforms to be this free for all. now we are reaping the results of it. people are yelling at each other, harassing each other, and have taken it into real life. they are actually shooting people down. emily: when you cracked down on speech at reddit, which was not easy and there were people who disagreed with what you were doing, research in the aftermath showed what you did increased positive conversation. some users started behaving, and yet, other users simply fled to other sites like voat, 4chan, 8chan. talk about the challenges of doing something. in addition to doing nothing.
>> it is hard. a lot of people want to see this magic bullet. i am the ceo of reddit, i should take down all the content and that will solve the problem, but it doesn't. there are other places. but it is important to do something. i don't have to solve the whole problem as ceo of my platform, but i should make my platform a place where people can actually have conversations, where real information outweighs fake information, where people are becoming more knowledgeable and better at interacting with each other and not being led down the path towards white supremacy, misogyny, trans-phobia, terrorism. emily: let's take a listen to what the president had to say. he talked about online radicalization. take a listen. >> we must recognize that the internet has provided a dangerous avenue to radicalize disturbed minds and perform demented acts.
we must shine light on the dark recesses of the internet and stop mass murders before they start. emily: calling on the federal government to put pressure on social media companies to try and find mass shooters before they engage in these acts. is that realistic? >> i think it is hypocritical. he, of all people, should just stop radicalizing people. he should stop the racist, white, nationalistic or supremacist, actually, talk that he does using the internet to spread those messages and enable those terrorists. emily: let's talk about that. how much do you think this is a trump-related thing? he retweets right-wing extremists, he does not call for gun restrictions. instead, blames social media. how much is this really social media's fault for letting things get out of control?
>> it's a mix, it's always complicated. obviously, he has a huge role in spreading these messages and in normalizing them. but the media, both social media for allowing him to violate rules and amplifying him, and also journalists are amplifying his messages. looking for those clicks and attention and pushing out stories that amplify some of his messages of hate. emily: the former homeland security secretary had this to say about what he sees happening online. take a listen. >> particularly because of certain elements on the internet, a kind of intensification of the behavior we have seen over the last couple of weeks. it's not that people have changed, but they have been enabled, through the network, to find each other, and in some instances, to encourage or incite people to act on these impulses.
emily: so what more can social media companies do? >> i think they can set up rules, and many have them, but actually apply them across everybody. let's stop giving an exception to people who generate more clicks or engagement than others. let's stop giving an exemption for the president, let's stop giving exemption for people we think are going to complain the most for being taken off a platform. emily: in the past, you said twitter should ban president trump. do you believe that? >> looking at what's going on, it would be hard to say that he did not impact these acts, that it was not part of him inciting groups to target people from different backgrounds with different skin colors. it is a very convenient thing to
blame the internet, but that does not solve the problem. we have to get down to what we need to do. it's like, let's have these clear rules. you are not allowed to harass people, you're not allowed to threaten people, you are not allowed to incentivize people towards violence or to have people aggregating across different platforms. these are not rules that are new, these rules have been out there. these are the rules at reddit since i put them in there. that's just apply them evenly. stop quarantining. when you have different rules for different people, it does not make sense. you do that with your child. when you make boundaries, you make clear rules, and when you make exceptions, it becomes confusing. that is when you get bad activity. emily: 8chan is a site in question today and we have heard from the founder calling for the site to be shut down. interesting. even six years ago, he suggested
some of these mass shootings were linked. here we are six years later, nothing has changed. there are also businesses that provide services to some of these websites like cloudflare, which was keeping it up and repeatedly refused to pull it down. but cloud fair has now even decided to stop servicing 8chan. we got a statement from the ceo saying they have proven themselves to be lawless, causing multiple tragic deaths. even if 8chan had not violated the letter of the law, they have created an environment that revels in violating it's spirit. you pointed out there are other companies. twitter, for example, has a verified 8chan account. what are things companies can do to be stricter, even if it comes to the websites themselves?
>> a big part of it is thinking about the real-life implications of the things going on in your site. maybe the words aren't exactly doing something terrible alone, but you look at real life. you look at other platforms. all of this work coalesces in really terrible hateful behavior. so how do you think about that in the context of your contributions? how do you think about not necessarily solving the whole problem? so what if they go to other platforms, so what if they still go to aggregate, but you have done your best to solve the problem. saying that it is too hard or not going to solve the whole problem, that you need to be up to track these people, it's not worked. emily: ellen pao of project include. coming up, samsung's galaxy note 10 comes with a new screen and storage, we talk about everything that's new.
emily: samsung held its annual unpacked event in brooklyn, new york, launching the latest edition to its galaxy note line. it comes as the company grapples with waning chip and smartphone demand. i talked to mark gurman from the event. >> the biggest thing is the screen size, that is the most impressive change, one of the only changes, visually. that really makes me want a bigger iphone. the iphone x s max is out at 6.5 inches and you can really tell that you can see video more clearly, it's better for gaming and productivity.
hopefully, apple goes in that direction. that is the most impressive thing alongside the new 5g model. emily: how will this impact sales? obviously, there is competition from apple. there are lots of things going on with huawei. in general, the smartphone market, globally, is slowing down. >> my view is that this will do nothing to turn it around. this is not going to give new growth to the market. in general, people will not buy their first smartphone because of the note 10. people will not switch away from the iphone because of the note 10. what will happen is people on older notes or people from older, other samsung phones will want to upgrade. but as we know, the combination of a lack of major new features with skyhigh prices north of
$1300, that's a lethal combination for bad news. you can't charge this kind of price without adding revolutionary new things and expect people to upgrade annually. that's the real problem at hand, i don't see that changing because of the note 10. emily: you reported that when apple unveils its iphones in september, the update will be incremental. but there is a big design overhaul coming next year. is that the same for samsung? next year, there will be a bigger difference? >> apple and samsung are on opposite schedules. it just so happens that last year and this year, it was going to be small, incremental years for the new iphone. the 10 s and 10 s max, those are some of the smallest upgrades we've seen. i think i will be saying the same thing next month, samsung
seems to view the s 10 and note 10 devices this year as bigger, radical changes. so i don't anticipate big news from samsung next year. we will see if they keep rolling out new folding. up -- devices, i think that's where a lot of the market demand is coming for. emily: let's talk about that. the big foldable phone had a lot of problems, which you discovered. are they ready for prime time? >> two words that we do not here -- hear today, galaxy fold. but i do think the s 10 will be very different. it is was so quickly, easily discovered him a fundamental flaws with the fold. what with the s 10 and i had time to play with it today and the other day. these things seem as solid as last year's model.
i don't anticipate fundamental issues. emily: quickly, microsoft's ceo spoke on stage. tell us more about the partnership between samsung and microsoft. >> they really did not announce too much. they have had partnerships in the works for years now. they are expanding and opening up the phone app on microsoft windows 10 support the new phone. the note 10 will be sold at microphone -- microsoft stores and there will be deeper integration. not very groundbreaking, but just another notch on microsoft's belt for working with more companies. emily: thanks to bloomberg's mark gurman. coming up, softbank holds first quarter results that beat estimates. masayoshi son's vision fund is shaping up to be a success. how it will impact the vc landscape. this is bloomberg. ♪ hey! i'm bill slowsky jr.,
i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.
emily: welcome back to the best of "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. softbank posted first-quarter results on wednesday, mario she of the masayoshi son company has beat the highest analyst estimates. it owes that success to its first vision fund. companies like slack and doordash managed to offset declines. the company is getting ready to launch its second vision fund this year. to discuss, we were joined by bloomberg executive editor tom giles. >> this is masayoshi son transforming softbank away from this old-line telecommunications company with a majority stake in sprint.
he is very confident that that is going to get the approval that it needs so he can offload sprint off the balance sheet and really position himself, position softbank as an investor in up-and-coming technologies. as you pointed out, he's got a $100 billion vision fund. a lot of that money has been deployed. he is starting to reap a return on it from companies like slack , which went public this year. doordash is another one. there is a hotel business, and now he is embarking on vision fund two. that will be launched very soon. you start to see new investments from that fund. -- that fund of $108 billion. so he really wants to position softbank as a cutting edge company as a savvy investor. even though sometimes those investments don't go quite as well as he had hoped, uber being a case in point. emily: certainly, many of the investment funds in vision fund
one have not come to fruition. the question remains can a vision fund two at that size be successful or as successful as the first? >> you know, there's questions about the global economy. there are questions about growth. the trade war is hanging over the entire industry. so there are a lot of factors that will raise questions about whether new investments will work out as well as the previous slate of investments. will you get the return? not to mention the fact that when softbank comes in, sometimes it comes in a little bit later, when there is less upside for some of these investments. it has a tendency to inflate valuations beyond what they actually should be, based on the soundness of the underlying business. vision fund two, will it be as successful as vision fund one, there is a lot of reasons to be a little bit more skeptical and less optimistic about its prospects. emily: so what are the biggest challenges going to be?
a, you know, they have to place the bets and they have to find companies willing to take that money, and it is a lot of money. >> and just in finding smart businesses. we are through the cycle of where there was a lot of relatively easy money to be had in investing in consumer facing, ridesharing and ride-hailing businesses like uber, a big investment. so finding smart investments in an environment where there is just less willingness for risk, again, all those questions, we talked about the global economy and the trade war and the technology industry, less rosy than it has been in a while. the other big thing that you've got to remember, for getting sprint off the balance sheet and enabling people to kind of value softbank as a savvy tech investor, the deal is not done yet. sprint-t-mobile, it has gotten a
lot of federal approval, but there are a lot of federal antitrust lawsuits from u.s. states. you still have to clear that hurdle. the chances are it will, but it is not unprecedented for a deal to hit snags this late in the game. emily: bloomberg's tom giles. well, as we mentioned, softbank getting ready to launch its second vision fund this year. it is set to have a considerable impact on the d.c. landscape. fromke to two partners dcm. >> the first fund focused on the on demand sharing economy and i think they are now going to focus on cloud computing and enterprise software, which obviously have been growing quite well. in 2016, the multiple revenue for their market cap for their
x, now it isabout 5 10x. i think they are trying to follow where the money is and where the multiples are higher. emily: is there a lot of money to be made in enterprise startup investing? perhaps more than in consumer technology these days? >> i would say consumer gets the headlines. everyone talks about uber and lyft and doordash but the reality is you can't have any of that without cloud computing or enterprise software, without developer technology. my perspective would be that if you are in the fortune 500, you can't be in the fortune 500 unless you are a technology company. so everyone is investing in cloud computing, developers and engineering. that is what is driving returns today. look at zoom, look at octa, these companies are trading at 25x to 40x numbers still. i think most people don't know those names. that is where the returns are going to be in the future as well. emily: as an investor who has made a lot of consumer investments, what is your
reaction to that? david: i think it's natural, the whole advent of mobile phones and smartphones. i think consumers had access to that technology first, while the enterprise is still using laptops on their desktops. therefore, the growth in the consumer side was actually natural, and there has been a lot more business innovation around the consumer on the smart platform initially. and i think now that is getting penetrated into businesses. obviously it is fueled by cloud computing. therefore, now, it is really the turn for businesses to leverage the smartphone and mobile tech revolution. emily: ed, are there enough places for softbank to place all these bets, even in enterprise? i have heard some investors
complain there is not a lot of great things out there right now. >> i would say yes and no. if you look at the number of $100 million and above rounds that happened over the last two years, i think in just the u.s. billionast year 130 dollars was raised, but that was all in $100 million and above rounds. the perspective really is the enterprise is different from consumer. you can't throw a couple hundred million dollars and expect to win. money is not the competitive edge. there is money from every pocket of the world. there are public equity folks coming down and investing in private. there are private equity firms coming in and investing and capital firms have scaled up. so unlike consumer, where you can throw marketing dollars at media growth, this is a lag time for a lot of these enterprise businesses to increase their sales. for the enterprise to adopt their technology. my answer would be yes and no. yes, there are going to be plenty of opportunities. but no, it is not the same effect. money is not the main aspect of what is going to win in the enterprise space.
emily: now, david, how have softbank and the vision fund changed of the traditional vc let's get? -- vc landscape? you have softbank coming in with a lot of money. is that changing your strategy? >> well, i think it has been a very positive thing for early-stage vc's, because i think softbank is allowing some of those early-stage vc's to exit. the market has changed over the last five years, where much larger late stage funds have actually prolonged the exit, because they expect, they have been paying high prices and they still expect pretty good returns. but i think the vision fund fundamentally changed the landscape, because typical late over funds expect 2x to 3x a five-year period. is doing is son-san
going to entrepreneurs and saying, i am still willing to bet long-term and i am going to write a bigger check so you can change the competition and beat the competition and i am going to stick with you longer. and i think that is very appealing to entrepreneurs. and based on the check size they write, they typically win the deals because of the late stage -- because the late stage folks are looking for a little bit more short-term and their check size is smaller. emily: it is great for early-stage vc's, great for entrepreneurs. but i have to wonder, is there a risk of -- with this much money flooding into the system, are companies being kept afloat that shouldn't be kept afloat? >> absolutely. there is a long lag period, for example, in the public and private market. lots of money is not necessarily a good thing. the difference between $100 million and $200 million, are you going to hire more marketing folks? i think it means returns will eventually go down. a lot of times, founders may not
do smart things with too much capital. so that is definitely one thing to worry about in the enterprise space, and that keeps me concerned as well. emily: david, you are in tokyo. there is so much -- sure, go ahead, david. respond. david: i was going to say, on the contrary, enterprise software, you need a lot of salespeople to get to the companies to sell. whereas consumer, you can use that social networking to go grab customers. and i would disagree that you actually do need more money to go acquire customers in the enterprise space. and it takes longer for the enterprise software or enterprise customers to sign on. and so you do actually need more money for certain sectors. emily: that was ed sim of both start ventures and david chao of dcm.
coming up, fedex snips another tie with amazon, announcing the end of its ground delivery contract. we will talk to one of the founding members of what became fedex ground, next. later, a google veteran is created with creating the field of people analytics. now he is bringing ai and machine learning to hr outside google. we will talk about his start up next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: shipping giant fedex is offloading a ground delivery contract with amazon. it is the latest move by fedex to reduce its dependence on amazon as the online retailer builds out its own logistics network. with more on the implications and how it affects both companies, we are joined on the phone by founding member of the company that became fedex ground. >> amazon is so big and they have built their own capability to deliver their own packages so rapidly in less than two years that amazon is not going to feel anything from this. in fact, i would tell you that as of june and july, they have not been using fedex at all. so it was an academic exercise that fedex is terminating its contract, because there was no business fedex was getting anyway, so fedex is the one that will have to replace that volume with other e-commerce shippers.
emily: how does fedex replace that volume? satish: how do they replace it? by offering that capacity to other big guys like walmart and target and kohl's who are fairly large shippers of fedex and making their capacity available so they can have some of the retailers were giving to ups and the post office and have it converted to fedex. emily: would you agree, no paying for amazon, just a lot of work for fedex? >> look at what satish said. spends more than $31 billion in shipping every year. this is a couple hundred billion dollar business with fedex. this is a long time coming. this is not something that was unexpected. the variability and the risk here is not revenue, the risk is margins. amazon is going to one-day shipping going into the holiday season. there is a lot to cope with. obviously, ups and usps is
there. they have their own capacity expansion as well. but if you remember, back in 2015, they missed because their capacity was overwhelmed and they have to pay more for shipping. shipping, variability and margin variability is something they have to think about. from a margins perspective or a topline perspective, this was largely expected. satish, for someone who founded the company that became fedex ground, what do you make of the longer-term prospects for fedex, given they are keeping their relationship with ups, they have always got a relationship with the postal service, and fedex globally has had some patchy issues, particularly struggling in europe. satish: that is a great question. i think you are going to see that for the next three or four quarters or more, the company is going to be challenged to produced results that are valuable from their
perspectives. they have lost express volume. they are losing some ground. it is not going to be easy. it takes time to have customers replace another carrier with fedex. there is going to be a lot of hard work and tough times ahead for fedex. until they recover from it. long-term, when you dominate a customer and put a press release out, it leaves a bad taste in the minds of the shipper and amazon would be very reluctant, even if they have fedex coming and knocking on their door, we would like to handle your peak season volume, amazon is going to think twice before they give them any business again. what aboutitendra, the other companies like walmart and target that are trying to compete with amazon on delivery to narrow their own delivery times? could this be an opportunity for them? jitendra: well, walmart in particular has the biggest tractor and delivery here in the u.s., a private network.
so they are definitely well-equipped to handle their own. but like you said, there is a lot of direct to consumer demand and there is a three-piece shipping model that amazon has been benefiting from for a long time. you have consumer demand from companies that do not want to sell on that platform. they want to sell by themselves or on other platforms, things like that. maybe that is an opportunity they can go after. it is a big market in the end, but like losing access to 300 million plus customers that are willing to buy your products because you are on the platform, that holds that big volume back. it is going to be a wait and see. but as far as walmart is concerned, they are equipped. ofly: jitendra waral -- ofant intelligence bloomberg intelligence and -- of sj consulting. coming up, when human resources meets ai, 10 years of experience at google. we will talk to a google hr veteran about his new start up next. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: over the course of a
decade, google grew to 72,000 employees. during that time, google was recognized as a top employer over 150 times, racking up titles like best company to work for in the united states. though, the company has received more criticism recently. ach is bringing his google learnings to other companies with move. they use machine learning and artificial intelligence to make employees make behavioral changes with the goal of creating a happier workplace. i caught up with humu's ceo and cofounder, laszlo bock. >> the biggest thing i learned was, on a bad day when i was there, the worst thing was the lobster bisque was cold. right? it was a pretty privileged place to work. like me, who were in an immigrant -- you were an immigrant, people who worked hourly jobs or cafes, work was not going to get much better, sooner. we started to think about humu
bringing that goodness to other organizations. emily: you are using ai to identify behavioral changes to help nudge employees be better versions of themselves. what does that mean in practice? laszlo: when you step act, it is hard for organizations to change. it is hard for managers to be good managers and it is hard for employees to be good team members to feel safe and secure. our idea, which so far has been working pretty well, is that if you better understand what is going on with the people at an individual level, they want to be better. they want to learn and grow. small intervention. small reminders, that we call nudges, to a team member and colleague can drive behavioral change for the good than all of the training in the world. emily: give me some examples of how it works? laszlo: one example, there is a restaurant chain we work with and they wanted to roll out a new product. they wanted soup in their stores and it was new. but the underlying problem we identified in some of their stores was not product development or launches, it was that people did not feel free to ask their managers questions. and in the workforce, it is
largely hourly, mostly high school educated, workforces from underrepresented groups. so the nudges we sent were simple. we told managers to ask people for advice and their opinions. and we nudged individuals to assume good intent. because often as an employee, you assume your manager is out to get you. that caused people to say why don't we give out free samples? why don't we let people try the product? and that, in turn, led more sales and more business. that was great. but more important was more trust with their managers and team members, and people felt better about the work. emily: it is interesting you mentioned contractors, and you can't do an interview without talking about google. one of google's criticisms is how they handle temps, vendors, contractors. you have people today sending a letter to the google ceo, calling on them to make them employees full-time. they make up half of google's workforce. a better approach for google when it comes to contractors? laszlo: yes, you should hire
them as employees. emily: you think you should hire all of these temps as employees? laszlo: i think in general, you should. we have someone working part-time for us and i said i would rather have you as an employee on the books, with benefits. and i can see situations where you sort of try before you buy. you don't know if the person is going to work out. there are some jobs that are like that, right? also if you are ramping up and down rapidly, you don't know if as a business, you are going to invest for the long term. but no, i generally think if you are going to employ people, you should employ them. emily: what if they say it is too expensive? laszlo: if the company says that? emily: yes. laszlo: i think that is just the cost of doing business. emily: all right. you mentioned at the beginning of this, that there were times at google where the biggest problem was the last of this -- the lobster bisque was cold. now you have employees complaining about sexual misconduct and 20,000 employees leaving the company, how could google have handled that better? laszlo: it's hard to say, because on the ground, things always look different.
i will say of the nice things , one about being at humu is we get to make our own policies and decisions. and we have a very clear policy. if you engage in any kind of behavior of that kind, you are not there anymore. and so far that has served us pretty well. emily: in the meantime, there is an employee, a google employee who said she was on maternity leave, said she was not going back and wrote a memo and it went viral, saying despite these clear policies google says they had, she had a problem with her manager. this person retaliated and it is not a safe place for her to work. google saying they prohibit retaliation in the workplace. it is very clear. -- clear policy. there are multiple channels to report concerns. what about when the policies don't seem to work? laszlo: well, that is one of the things that is really tough about management. again, i haven't been at google for a while. i was excited when we came up
with five months of full pay maternity leave. that was a groundbreaking in the u.s. at the time. canada, not such a big deal. they have better. in canada, we offer a year of parental leave, because we think that is important. it is a special time in someone's life and you should care for that child. you shouldn't have financial pressure. emily: are people taking the year? laszlo: yes. we have two. one just came back to work. actually the first one took six , months. they just came back. it was amazing. we will see about annie. emily: it is interesting, some of the things where you have full control, you're doing it differently. why? laszlo: well, i think one of the things about leadership, this is one of the things i did learn at my last job, if you're lucky enough to have a large brand behind you that has a reputation and carries responsibility, like spider-man's uncle, with great power comes great responsibility. there are certain issues where you should speak out. but it is also true that inside a company, if you are not the founder or ceo, you have limited ability to do that.
and it is a blessing to be able to say, the right thing is to provide parents a leave. the right thing is if somebody engages in bad conduct, you let them go. emily: quickly, how do you think humu can make a company like like google or any company better? laszlo: what we have seen in companies like -- there are only a few companies where we can share the name publicly, but places like fidelity. places like virgin atlantic. the cumulative effect of small intervention helps people be their best selves. so you see improvement in things like openness, in terms of sharing and gratitude and how people treat one another as human beings. which, by the way, ends up having a business impact. days, a 12%wo productivity lift. the cool thing for me is people come to work happier and leave happier. ceo andhank you to humu cofounder laszlo bock. that does it for this edition of the "best of bloomberg
haslinda: hello. i am haslinda amin in singapore. he is at the helm of one of the largest e-commerce companies in southeast asia. a young man who helped create a billion-dollar firm. bukalapak is one of four unicorns in indonesia. is cofounder and president, fajrin rasyid, is today's high flyer. the bukalapak story began in 2010. three friends at university on a