Pod Insights The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway Office Hours: Elon Musk and the Algebra of Deterrence, Amazon’s Third-Party Sellers, and the Dangers of Algorithmic Ads About this episode Scott answers a question on why Elon Musk is able to get away with skirting the law, and shares his thoughts on why Musk’s Twitter takeover attempt may be a seminal moment for the SEC. He also answers a question about what might lie ahead for the companies that aggregate third-party sellers on Amazon’s platform, and weighs the pros and cons of subscription versus ad models.
Music: https://www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:01 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Northwest Registered Agent. Your business identity is everything that makes your business legitimate and professional. With Northwest Registered Agent, you don't just form a business, you start a complete foundation built for privacy, credibility, and growth. That includes registered agent service, a business address, operating agreement, domain, website, professional email, phone number, and built-in privacy. In other words, your home address, personal email, and phone number stay private. Don't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for what you can get from Northwest for free. Visit northwestregisteredagent.com/profgfree and start using free resources to build something amazing. Get more with Northwest Registered Agent at northwestregisteredagent.com/profgfree.
0:48 Speaker 01 Here's your report.
0:49 Speaker 02 Oh, thanks, Jane. I wish I could hire someone just like you.
0:52 Speaker 01 Try LinkedIn Hiring Pro. It's more than a job board. It's like the recruiter you always wished you had. Hiring Pro uses real-time insights to match your role to LinkedIn's unique network of professionals and delivers a shortlist of best-fit candidates. You'll spend less time sorting applicants and more time talking to the right people.
1:08 Speaker 02 Let's do it. You're irreplaceable, Jane, but another you would be great.
1:12 Speaker 01 Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.
1:26 Scott Galloway? Welcome to the Prof G Pod's Office Hours. This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship, and whatever else is on your mind. If you'd like to submit a question, please visit officehours.profgmedia.com. Again, that's officehours.profgmedia.com. And again, I don't see these questions before you ask them. First question.
1:47 Speaker 03 Hey, Prof G. Tom calling in from Berlin, Germany, all the way over in Europe. On a recent ep of the pod, I heard you refer to Elon Musk talking about creating his own social media platform. The very next day, Elon bought almost 10% of Twitter, making him the biggest shareholder. We've also seen Elon making comments about Bitcoin or Doge, followed not long after by him making trades. He's been in trouble with the SEC for making comments in public about Tesla. It strikes me that there's a pretty clear pattern of Elon using his platform to move a stock or an asset price and then trading on that move. So my question is this: what the fuck? As a regular schmuck, if I were to forget to tell the tax department about some of
2:30 Speaker 03 my earnings, or if I were to set up a lemonade stand and serve lemonade made with tap from Flint, Michigan, I'd get put out of business by the authorities in no time flat. How come moves like Elon's are allowed to happen so brazenly, not to mention that many, many more happen behind closed doors? What options do I have as a regular Joe to kind of flaunt the law and make a shitload of money?
2:51 Scott Galloway? Tom from the Berlin in Europe, thanks for the thoughtful question. Look, as nations become wealthier and more educated, the reliance on a super being and church attendance goes down. And as a species, our competitive advantage is our brain, and it's big enough to ask very complicated questions, but not quite big enough to answer them. So into that void slips a super being. And as our dependence or reliance or faith in a super being goes down, we need other idols, other sources of answers to fill that void. And in the case of the United States, and a lot of Western nations, but specifically the United States, we fill that void with something that feels godlike, that's magical, that's mystical, that we don't understand, that's incredible, that can answer questions,
3:34 Scott Galloway? connect us with people, and that is technology. I kind of understand how a car works, so I'm not as impressed by it. I kind of understand a pop tart or how a pop tart gets made. So the CEO of General Foods is just not that impressive to me. But technology is just so incredible and has created so much wealth and does these amazing things, whether it's finding me the answer to any question or potentially putting someone on Mars. It does feel godlike. And so as a result, the new Jesus Christ of an information economy are the CEOs of tech firms, and we afford them this idolatry that we traditionally haven't afforded other CEOs, much less other individuals. And it's very unhealthy because they get to live by a different set of standards. The SEC should publish new rules for billionaires. You're right, Tom.
4:19 Scott Galloway? If you had said you were taking a company private... At a certain dollar amount that you ended funding was secured and ended up you did not have funding, you would probably be prohibited from ever serving on a board or being the officer of a public company. And to a certain extent, the SEC is saying, well, look, we, he is different. He adds incredible value and we need to take that into account. I think that's a fair argument. But what's happened here is that over time, the key or the protocol or one of the keys to the protocol of a capitalist society and to America, and the reason why capital still flows in here is that money and people believe that there's a rule of fair play here. And rule of fair play is supposed to apply to everyone. And right now, Elon is, not right now, over the last year, he's just been waving his middle
5:04 Scott Galloway? finger in the face of our government. And what you have is a loss of faith in our institutions, a lack of respect for how important it is or what a great role or positive role US government has played. And if you want to try and buy stocks and if you want to continue to raise money from the markets and have liquid markets and believe that when you buy a share of something, you're not going to wake up and find out that it was a fraud, or if people did steal money from you, they get punished for it, you're going to have to have an SEC that has some teeth, that has some resources. And slowly but surely, the wealthy have overrun these regulatory agencies. It is totally out of balance, totally out of balance. The fastest growing expense line at tech right now is not AI. As a percentage of revenues or year on year increases, the fastest growing expense line
5:49 Scott Galloway? is lobbying. There are more full time lobbyists working for Amazon who live in Washington DC than there are sitting US senators. There are more people in the PR and comms department of Facebook than there are journalists at the Washington Post. So if you believe, or if your instincts are that there are two sets of rules here, trust your instincts. I'd like to think that this is a seminal moment in that the SEC is going to step in here and hit pretty hard on Mr. Musk. Now, I might be hallucinating or I might be wishful thinking, but I do think it's going to happen because with only a few thousand people and a low single digit billions budget, the SEC is outgunned here. So what do they need to do? They need to put in place an algebra deterrence. What does that mean?
6:30 Scott Galloway? They need to pursue some high-profile cases and send a message to everyone after this high-profile case is decided. So, the SEC and the DOJ did this with Michael Milken. They said, "He's broken the law, and if we put Michael Milken in jail, it is going to be, is going to create a series of invisible cops all over the beat." The most powerful cop on any beat is deterrence. And we have lost that deterrence because the parking meter in front of our house costs a hundred bucks every 15 minutes, and the parking ticket has been 25 cents. The algebra deterrence is very basic. It's the likelihood I get caught times the fine has to be greater than the expected upside of violating the law. And right now, the algebra deterrence is negative, meaning you are encouraged not
7:13 Scott Galloway? to file a disclosure because you get to buy shares for 140 million less. Because any fine you pay is probably going to be less than that 140 million. Or it's just going to be, who cares? The equivalent of buying a charger. And the reason I bring up the charger metaphor is that if you look at Elon Musk's purchases of these shares and what it cost him, it's the equivalent to him of buying a laptop for the average US household. In other words, the price of a MacBook relative to $120,000, which is the average household wealth in the US, is similar to Elon Musk spending $2 billion to buy Twitter shares. So, what do we need here? We need the government to step in and create an algebra deterrence. And I'm hopeful they're going to do that. So, to summarize, yeah, they get to play by different rules than us.
7:57 Scott Galloway? And when I say "they," I mean billionaires, and specifically, specifically tech billionaires get to play by much different rules. I am hopeful. I don't think the world is what it is. I think the world is what we make of it. And I think government agencies, specifically the SEC, are in fact going to step in here. Thanks for the question. Question number two.
8:17 Speaker 04 Hi, Scott. This is Clint Lazz, a big calling from the Silicon Valley of retail, Bentonville, Arkansas. I have been watching the staggering amounts of capital being raised by Amazon aggregators with a great deal of interest and more than a little skepticism. There are a lot of funds who are raising money to buy these Amazon sellers to exploit some great backend synergy and more efficient advertising. In concept, this makes some sense to me. Having said that, I cannot help but wonder about the risk to not owning the distribution channel, as you have rightly pointed out a number of times with respect to Apple, Google, and Facebook. It seems like this is a way to try and arbitrage the Amazon ecosystem and use it in a way that may not be aligned with Amazon's overall interests.
9:01 Speaker 04 Do you have concerns about the risk these companies and funds are taking by investing on top of Amazon's platform and set lack of control over their distribution channel? Looking forward to hearing your point of view. Thanks, Scott.
9:14 Scott Galloway? Yeah, so this is a great question. Thank you. More than half of the units on Amazon come from third-party sellers. So the business of being a platform for other retailers is now a bigger business than actually Amazon being in the business of retailing. That is, taking license to stuff, actually owning it, and then shipping it out and taking responsibility for it themselves, although they offer fulfillment, they offer advertising and slowly but surely, if you want to be on their platform, they have increased the rents from 19% on the dollar to 34%. See above monopoly power. Between Black Friday and Christmas of 2021, US-based third-party sellers sold an average of 11,500 products permitted on the platform. Aggregators buy up those third-party sellers and operate them under one umbrella company, relying on Amazon's fulfillment services to store, process, and ship orders.
9:58 Scott Galloway? So, you know, you can see that there's a business here. There's a subcategory in this ecosystem that could create value through scale. So according to the Economic Times, aggregators raised more than $700 million in the past year alone. The leading aggregator, Thrasio, has raised a total of $3.5 billion to date, and there are currently 96 active Amazon aggregators, a third of which have raised at least $100 million. That's up from 69 just last July. So the market is getting more crowded, and we're likely going to see some consolidation here. But strategically, what you're asking is, are they putting themselves in a vulnerable position? You're 100% right. When you don't control the distribution, when you're Facebook and you don't have a
10:39 Scott Galloway? device that has gotten any traction, and so you can't control the end user, someone can pop up, Tim Cook can pop up and say, "I don't like Meta or this guy," and basically turn off tracking. And overnight, you take a huge hit. So controlling or lack of control of your distribution... Puts you kind of in the crosshairs of someone else's blood sugar level. And it's the same thing here. I'll give you some examples. I was on the board of the New York Times and they had purchased about.com, which I said, we should sell. Supposedly we could have got about a billion dollars for it. And I said, why on earth are we, do we own about.com? And about.com was sort of this digital arbitrage where they were very good at buying Google keywords on southern cooking and then driving traffic to this
11:24 Scott Galloway? kind of content farm around southern cooking. And then we would run digital marketing against it and arbitrage. We could make more money running ads for chili cooking utensils, whatever it might be versus our ability versus what it costs to drive traffic. Overnight, Google said, you know, we don't like this and we'd rather figure out a way to starch out that margin. That's their job. They don't want people arbitraging their platform. They want to arbitrage it. And overnight with a panda, or whatever the hell they called it, when they redo the algorithms, we woke up and our revenues were down 40%. We ended up selling about for, I don't know, 250 million or 220 million. My point is we don't control your distribution.
12:08 Scott Galloway? You are absolutely vulnerable. And at any point here, if this business becomes big enough, Amazon is going to go, you know what? We can figure out a way to capture this additional margin. So they'll let them survive just long enough until the margin is juicy enough to warrant the investment in engineers. And they can do whatever they want. It's their platform. So I think this is a very dangerous business to be in. I think you are, you are kind of subject to the whims of Andy Jassy. I would not want to invest in one of these companies. I think that's, you're absolutely right that these companies show an incredible ability to be unemotional about these decisions, regardless of who it impacts. And it's their ecosystem. You just live in it.
12:52 Scott Galloway? We have one quick break before our final question. Stay with us.
12:59 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Superhuman. The pace of modern work can be relentless. You're getting a constant influx of messages from a ton of different apps. You haven't closed all your browser tabs in a year. Everything seems urgent and staying on top of it all feels like an impossible task. Superhuman Go is an AI chat that's always there when you need it. Already aware of what you're doing and doesn't ask you to start from zero. Superhuman Go, from the makers of Grammarly, help you be the best version of yourself at work. It handles the repetitive stuff so you can focus on the work that only you can do. Whether you need to summarize an endless email thread or prep for a meeting that's happening in five minutes, Superhuman Go works inside the tools and sites you already use: your browser, inbox, docs, and your project tools.
13:40 Scott Galloway? And its AI chat is available on the side of your browser and it's always ready. No new tabs, no switching apps, no losing your place. This is AI that works with you, not on top of you, so that you have the time and brain space to solve the problems that matter. Check it out, find out more at superhuman.com.
14:02 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Upwork. Trying to scale your business? At some point, you're probably going to hit a point where you need some help. Sometimes the best way to break through that is bringing in the right talent at the right time. Upwork can help. Upwork is a one-stop platform where you can find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across more than 125 categories. Whether you need specialized skills for a single project or extra support to keep up with demand, it's easy to connect with experienced professionals, review their work, and find the right fit. You can move faster without taking on the commitment of full-time hires. And for businesses that need the very best talent, Upwork Business Plus provides access to the top 1% of freelancers on the platform. AI-powered matching connects you with qualified candidates in under six hours, cutting down the time spent searching.
14:45 Scott Galloway? Upwork also takes care of contracts, payments, and other administrative tasks, so you can spend less time managing logistics and more time focused on what's next. Visit upwork.com/profg right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com/profg to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U.P.W.O.R.K. com/profg. Upwork.com/profg.
15:14 Scott Galloway? Welcome back. Question number three.
15:17 Speaker 05 Hey Prof G, this is Shane and I'm an electrical engineer working just outside Baltimore, Maryland. My question gets at the balance between the advertising industry and subscription-based business models. In recent episodes of both Prof G and Pivot, you have been especially critical of companies such as Google and Facebook for the algorithms behind their advertisements and how those algorithms corrupt society. I get what you're saying, but I want to challenge you on that. Don't get me wrong, I'm very keen to the harm that has been borne from radicalization on both platforms. However, there have been many instances during which I found ads served across Google and YouTube helpful and as such bought those products. On the flip side, I'm fortunate enough to afford multiple subscriptions, but there are millions upon millions of consumers who cannot. As you laud companies like Netflix and Niva, as well as potential moves like subscription Twitter, I want to
15:59 Speaker 05 know how you would address the advertising industry. Your recent rhetoric suggests you would eliminate the entire business model and yet it strikes me as foolish and unrealistic such a scenario would even happen. How would you balance algorithmic-driven ads versus subscription revenue moving forward and into the future?
16:13 Scott Galloway? That's a really thoughtful question. And first off, let me just acknowledge that I think that there's some common ground here. And Shane, I think you're, I just think there's a lot of credibility and common sense in what you're saying. And I really appreciate and value respectful pushback because I get it wrong all the time and I learn and I think part of progress is civil debate and discussion. So UBS predicts that the subscription economy, which covers everything from home delivery to digital entertainment, will grow to 1.5 trillion by 2025, more than double the estimated 650 billion it's worth now. So people seem to be finding money for subscriptions. The issue here, so there's a couple of issues. One, the algorithms. I think of an algorithm serves you up a pair of on-running tennis shoes,
16:58 Scott Galloway? which Instagram did, and I purchased them and I love them. More power to them.
17:05 Scott Galloway? I think algorithms are a great thing. I'm not against algorithms. What I'm against is misinformation that's elevated by an algorithm solely because that misinformation will create rage or novelty travels faster. It's more interesting when you get a piece of information that claims on Facebook that the vaccines alter your DNA, which is false. People are interested in that. They're not only interested in it, they're interested in saying that's not true and it creates more interaction, more attention, more Nissan ads. So the algorithms have incentive to spread misinformation that results, in my view, or one of the factors that have resulted in the wealthiest nation in the world having some of the lowest vaccination rates of any wealthy economy and unnecessary death, disease
17:49 Scott Galloway? and disability. So I believe when an algorithm elevates a certain type of content and that content is obviously harmful to people in the Commonwealth, that similar to every other media company, the person who programmed that algorithm or the company should have the same liability as every other company. Now, now, I don't think algorithms are necessarily all bad. I don't think if you're buying stuff, I think probably 80, 90%, maybe 99% of the stuff that's elevated by algorithms and targeting you and saying, hey, I saw that you're searching for safaris. I'm going to run an Abercrombie and Kent ad against that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think capitalism is a wonderful thing. Or if you're doing searches for a gun and the NRA serves you an ad, I don't
18:34 Scott Galloway? think there's anything wrong with that. But when you are serving extreme dieting sites, our algorithms have said, okay, we have a 16-year-old who is, seems to be insecure about her body. We're going to serve her extreme dieting content because we find that she will go down that rabbit hole and spend a disproportionate amount of time on Instagram. Which is what we want, even though that may not be the best content for her. Put another way, that might be the worst type of content for her to be consuming. And we might find that the moment that Instagram gets adopted by teen girls in the UK, that our own research shows they have a greater propensity to self harm and depression. I think they should be liable for that, just as any other company is liable for it.
19:18 Scott Galloway? We no longer distribute this podcast on Spotify because I was upset and still am that Spotify decided to not put in place any moderation or fact checking on some of its most popular podcasts that influenced tens of millions of people. And I'm not suggesting that's not their right, although I think they should be accountable. And as a capitalist, I say, I don't want to traffic in that. I don't want to make money for an organization that's taking that money to spread misinformation because they think it's going to result in more downloads, even though they know, they know that is misinformation. I think on certain issues around health, around government, around anything regarding
19:59 Scott Galloway? elections, I think that stuff is sacred and warrants an additional level of scrutiny. Should the dissenter's voice be heard? Should people be able to say, I think the vote was stolen? Yes, but the moment that content is elevated and gets more reach than it would organically, you're subject to the same libel laws as any other media firm. Now, with respect to your question around subscription, you bring up a good point, and that is what happens? Does the world bifurcate into a group of people that can afford fact checked information via subscription? And then another community that can't afford that fact checked information? And we have sort of a underclass of people being fed misinformation all day. I think that is a viable argument. The UK tries to get around this by charging every household, I think it's 100 or 200 bucks a year, to fund the BBC.
20:43 Scott Galloway? And the BBC is trusted and tries to call balls and strikes on both sides. The most trusted are the one, the two organizations I think that are sort of seen in the middle are neutral arbiters. One is the Wall Street Journal, believe it or not. The other is PBS, which gets government funding. So you could argue there's a role for government to fund non ad supported information that attempts to demonstrate some level, or at least nod to both viewpoints. I do think, I do think that ultimately there is a bevy of options at a fairly limited price. I don't think this is, I don't think it's access to truth, access to.
21:23 Scott Galloway? Fact-checked news is that expensive. I think you can find it. The cost to society of elevating novel content, I think, has been greater than the relative downside of that, that kind of bifurcation, if you will, that underclass of people who would be subject to more misinformation. I do think, I don't want to just totally discount the ad model. You're seeing a lot of streamers who are now saying, we've kind of, we've kind of, they're under the impression that consumers have run out of breath with subscription. I actually don't think that's true, but the word they are, so they're talking about advertising on HBO. Even Netflix, for the first time, hasn't ruled it out. And Roku is advertising. So the ad model may be, may be dying, but like most businesses that are
22:05 Scott Galloway? going away, or business models that are going away, it'll die more slowly than people think. For example, I went on the board of a Yellow Pages company. Why? Why? Because we could buy these things at two times earnings. And we know the Yellow Pages business is going out of business, but it's not going out of business in two years. So the decline of the advertising industrial complex will happen. It probably won't happen as fast as I think. But I don't think this bifurcation or this underclass is going to be as big a danger as we think, because I do think there are organizations and possible government funding of fact-checked information. And I even think there's a pretty big market for reasonable fact-checked information that is ad-supported. But that is a really thoughtful question. I appreciate you reaching out, and I appreciate the polite pushback.
22:50 Scott Galloway? That's all for this episode. Again, if you'd like to submit a question, please submit a voice recording by visiting officehours.profgmedia.com.
23:08 Scott Galloway? Our producers are Caroline Shager and Drew Burrows. Claire Miller is our associate producer. If you like what you heard, please follow, download, and subscribe. Thank you for listening to the Prof G Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network. We will catch you on Thursday.
23:22 Speaker 06 Now at Kroger, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to $35 on your next fill-up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh, quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Kroger, fresh for everyone. Restrictions apply. See site or store for details.
23:52 Speaker 07 They're running a Cover 2 defense. But you're running to get game day deals on Uber Eats. Keep everyone at tonight's watch party fed with deals from your go-to restaurants. Or stock up with deals on your favorite snacks and groceries. Whatever the occasion, get game day deals on Uber Eats all season long. It's not football without food. Uber Eats. Order now. Terms apply. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.
Previous Startups vs. Big Corporations, Regulating Monopolies, and Tech Folly — with Noam Bardin Next Rebranding Nuclear Energy — with Dr. Jessica Lovering Page updated September 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
