We are used to paying different prices for airline tickets, Uber rides, and
hotel rooms. But can you imagine a time when all sorts of retailers use data to tailor
their marketing and pricing for each individual customer? Welcome to "The Big Question," the
monthly video series from Chicago Booth Review. I'm Hal Weitzman, and with me to discuss the
issue is an expert panel.
Jean-Pierre Dubé is the Sigmund E. Edelstone Professor of Marketing
and director of the Kilts Center for Marketing at Chicago Booth, where he teaches an MBA
class on pricing strategies. And Jon Morris is the founder and CEO of Rise Interactive,
a digital marketing agency that came out of Chicago Booth's annual business-plan competition,
the New Venture Challenge. Panel, welcome to "The Big Question." Jon Morris, let me start
with you. Companies are collecting a huge amount of data these days. How are they using
those data to personalize their offerings? [Jon Morris:] Great question. They do it in
a few ways. The first is they're getting away from manual segmentation and actually--
[Hal Weitzman:] And explain what we mean by manual segmentation?
[Jon Morris:] Sure. So, rather than creating business
rules—we are going to market to just males, or just females—they are now able to gather
data on people on an individualized basis and learn about their attributes, and then
they can market to the individuals that have the highest propensity to actually be a customer or
purchase, as well as to customize the creative that each one of those individuals actually wants to see.
[Hal Weitzman:] What's the "creative," meaning . . .?
[Jon Morris:] A banner ad, an email, a direct-mail piece, their on-site experience, their
mobile-app experience, their social-media experience. There's a whole series of different
things that you can customize based on people's past purchase behavior, their online behavior,
their loyalty behavior, so that people actually start seeing creative that they're interested
in, and marketers are actually marketing to people who wanna see their creative, and spending
less money on people who don't wanna see their creative.
[Hal Weitzman:] OK, so what does that look like? You mentioned banner ads, something
pops up. We've all seen those kinds of things. It's directed at me. It seems almost like
a description of me. [Jon Morris:] Yeah. So, let's just say you
go to a sports retailer, and you are purchasing football equipment. The banner ads will know
what you've purchased in the past. They'll be able to analyze, based on the products you've
purchased in the past: these are the things that have the highest likelihood of being
purchased going forward, so they can show those products in the creative.
[Hal Weitzman:] And you work with lots of different kinds of companies. Who's doing
more of this kind of personalized marketing? [Jon Morris:] Retailers in general are doing
this fairly extensively, but we're seeing B2B companies doing this. We're seeing
hospital systems doing this. It really runs a very wide gamut in terms of multiple industries
that are doing this type of stuff. [Hal Weitzman:] J. P. Dubé, you're a
pricing expert. We were talking there about marketing. To what extent are companies using these data
to think about how to get prices right down to the individual or close to it?
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] I think firms right now are still a little reluctant to genuinely
personalize in the same way that Jon described the personalization of, say, an email, or a
display ad, or some other communication. I think there's still a lot of misunderstanding
and disagreement about fairness, and when it comes to the prices charged, I think fairness
starts to play a really big role even though, as I said a moment ago, I think this is a
misunderstood concept in terms of how we define what's fair. That said, we've certainly got
industries where prices have been targeted and individualized for a long time. Airlines,
for example. We know that there's a lot of different ways in which dynamic pricing is
used in general. Dynamic pricing largely means that the firm allows its prices to evolve
over time based on the accumulation of data. So prices could evolve because a flight isn't
selling tickets—so demand reveals itself to be less pronounced than desired, so they
lower the price. A passenger, maybe through repeated interactions with the firm, reveals
their status as a high-willingness-to-pay person. They don't get access to the same
discounts. And if there's any doubts about that, all you need to do is log in to your
favorite airline's website, enter your loyalty card number or your loyalty membership, and
get your price quote. Then log out and do the same thing without providing the number, and
you often get very different fares. In fact, what the airlines will sometimes do is even
show you a different order in terms of the fares that are available. There's all sorts
of things they'll do to try and steer you toward different prices, including actually
charging you explicitly different prices for the same things.
[Hal Weitzman:] So, let's get into that issue about the controversy behind personalization.
Am I right in thinking, Jon, that in marketing this is less controversial, that I don't have
that reaction so much against having marketing personalized to me as I would about pricing
personalized to me? [Jon Morris:] Personalization is probably
the hottest trend in all of marketing right now. Every single company is trying to figure
out how they can make the experience more relevant and more meaningful for their customers
or their prospective customers. What they are all trying to do is collect massive amounts
of data. And the first thing they're trying to do is just understand who actually wants to see
their advertisements. Because if you think about it, when you spend money on marketing,
a percent of your money is always wasted on people who have zero interest in your product.
If you can ensure that you're spending it more on the people who are interested, you're
gonna get a higher return. Once you've actually identified those individuals, the next thing
is you're going to have to show them a creative. It could be a banner ad. It could be an email,
It could be a direct-mail piece. It could also be your web experience or your
mobile-app experience. And so, they are taking this data and customizing it and personalizing it. It might
be the products that they see, the offers that they get, the lifestyle imagery, the
language, the vernacular that is used in the language. There's a whole series of different
things that you can personalize once you have enough data on those individuals.
[Hal Weitzman:] Well, I guess what I'm asking is, do companies you work with get any pushback
from customers about the idea that their data are being stored and then mined to create this
advertising that you're talking about? [Jean-Pierre Dubé:] A lot of this depends
on transparency, right? I think the first thing is whether or not customers are capable of
determining that the messaging or pricing they received was somehow differentiated from
what others received, and this is not a new thing. Back in 2000, I think it was, Amazon
got into some trouble. There was a lot of press, there was a lot of discussion about
this online, when users determined that depending on which browser you were using, people weren't
seeing the same set of deals on top 10 CDs and top 10 books, so best sellers. So, when there's
some sort of differentiation in the kind of offers—and in particular, offers are being
made available to some but not to you—this is when you start to see a customer backlash.
But I think this really boils down to transparency. It also depends a little bit on culture. For
example, in Europe right now, and I'm sure, Jon, you're all too aware of GDPR, which
is a new set of rules and regulations that are gonna be implemented later this year regarding
how individual data can be used in the European Union. Number one, it's gonna set a set of
rules and regulations that'll be European Union–wide that all countries will have to
comply with. But among other things, one of the most controversial aspects of these laws is
that, in theory, it will give an individual user the right to challenge any kind of algorithmically
determined marketing communication to them, which could include a display ad but also
could include prices and other kinds of things, and that, in theory, this individual will be
allowed to challenge why they received that ad, which would then require the marketer
to tell them how the algorithm came up with the offer or the communication, which includes
going through the details of the algorithm, going through the exact data that were used—
what information did I use about you to come up with this offer? Whether or not this will
have any real bite in a court of law has yet to be determined. This is something we'll
need a judicial precedent in order to determine. But certainly right now it seems to limit
some of the scope for doing personalization in general. In the US, I think what you're
seeing is a lot more emphasis on the personalization, or at least segmentation, of prices that right
now people think being charged different amounts for the same thing is really unfair. It's
an odd thing because we've been charged different amounts for stuff for a long time. Some would
even question if it's legal in spite of the fact if you go to the movies, for the exact
same chair at the exact same showing of the same film, your age would determine what you
pay. There's a senior citizen's discount and there's a children's discount. So, there's
been price discrimination on age for at least as long as I've been going to the movies,
which, as you can tell by my hair color, is a lot longer than I wish. There's certainly a lot
of segmented pricing in the airlines, for example. So, it's funny that we accept these
things as par for the course in some segments, but when we hear about it in other settings
where we're not as used to seeing it, suddenly it seems unfair, and to some it might even
feel unethical or perhaps against the law. [Hal Weitzman:] Yeah. And why do you think
there is that tendency to feel that? We don't feel anything unfair about the airline
pricing, and, as you say, the senior discounts. And there's not people in the streets complaining
about those, and yet the idea that I would have a price personalized to me is something
that seems— [Jean-Pierre Dubé:] First, I doubt anyone would
say they think it's fair to have differential pricing in the airline industry. I think
people are kind of stuck with it.
[Hal Weitzman:] Yeah
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] We may not be super inelastic in terms of our demand for a specific airline,
but we're definitely inelastic in terms of our needs to fly. There are jobs where I have
no choice but to fly. There are family occasions that require me to fly, which gives the airlines
a fair amount of power to implement these pricing regardless of whether or not I think
it's fair. In other industries like retail, for example, I might find it more unfair,
or I might be less willing to accept it because there may be more substitutes. But I think
a big part of this fairness debate stems from a lack of understanding about what is fair
and what's not. It seems the established wisdom now is that your layperson defines fair as:
we should all be charged exactly the same amount. That's fair. Here's the challenge
with that definition of fairness, and this is why I think more thought is required. I'm
sure we've all seen the movie "Minority Report." You've seen "Minority Report"? "Minority Report"
is a science-fiction film where a security force, using beings that have magical powers
and technology, purport to be able to anticipate individual's actions before they occur. And
the idea would be there to target and personalize a police action against someone based on a
predicted and anticipated behavior. Now, let's first review the facts. Number one, that's
science fiction. Number two, it still required individuals to have magic powers, these forensic
beings, so it wasn't really pure technology and data. But most importantly, even with this
almost deus ex machina, the magical beings, in spite of that, the climax of the film reveals
that the technology was imperfect. That's an important detail. Targeting is imperfect.
We can't get inside your mind and exactly know what you're thinking. We will always
make statistical errors and modeling errors when we're trying to predict behavior. So
now, let's step back from that. We're not doing perfect targeting; we're doing imperfect
targeting. What does the theory tell us, because we do have established economic theory on
what happens when a firm can engage in imperfect targeting. The answer is: it can go any way.
I know people don't like this "it could go any way; it depends," but the reality is when
a firm engages in imperfect targeting, where there's statistical error, classification
error, etc., the results are ambiguous. You can have scenarios where more consumers get
served as a result of targeting, and the consumer population could be made better off. If you
look at total value delivered, society could benefit from targeted pricing. Similarly from
targeted marketing. But it's also theoretically plausible that, with targeting, enough people
are charged higher prices or given disadvantageous— from their point of view—marketing that consumers
as a whole could be made worse off. Let's think about it. Let's imagine that a firm
engages in personalized pricing--this is probably the most contentious kind of targeted marketing--and
that more customers are served as a result, that the majority of customers actually are
targeted a lower price than would have been the price if everyone was required to be
charged the same amount, but in spite of that, a small minority of customers are paying more.
Is that fair or unfair? Well, let's think about the alternative. If we implemented a rule that said
by law, the firm has to charge everyone the same amount, fewer customers would get served,
so now we have to ask what's fair. Is it more fair to serve the majority, even if a small
minority gets charged higher prices as a result? Or alternatively, is it more fair to implement
a standardized, uniform price for everyone, where only a small fraction of the consumer
population can get served now, because prices are now too high?
[Hal Weitzman:] Yeah. A lot of interesting issues there. But there's still the social
taboo kind of exists. You make a very compelling argument.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] I just think people have a very imprecise definition of fairness. We
need to establish what is fair and equitable. Is it that everyone gets charged the same amount,
or is it that everyone gets access to the same value?
[Hal Weitzman:] In terms of the marketing side, and we talked about offers and coupons,
which of course are a way, aren't they, to personalize pricing while keeping the official
price the same for everyone. What is the relationship between the personalized marketing that you
do, or the segmented marketing that you do for customers, and the pricing strategies?
[Jon Morris:] In the groups that we generally deal with, oftentimes they're separate.
But one group in particular that we are noticing is the pricing strategies of
our clients that are selling commoditized products.
And what's interesting, especially as everyone is trying to figure out how to
compete with Amazon, is pricing becomes a critical component to what is the demand for their
sales, what is the impact that their marketing is going to have. And it's an interesting thing,
as we're talking not just about fairness but just overall pricing strategy, in the online
world, Amazon changes all the rules. Oftentimes they have a huge pricing advantage, and people
are really trying to focus on the personalized aspect so that if they can customize offers
or they can customize pricing to individuals, it gives them a chance to potentially compete
with the 800-lb. gorilla in the retail world.
[Hal Weitzman:] J. P. Dubé, because of some
of the hesitations that we've talked about, companies are not, am I right in saying,
companies are not using targeted pricing in the same way that they're using targeted marketing?
Is that fair? [Jean-Pierre Dube:] I would say it's just
not as pervasive. There are, of course exceptions, there are many retailers, not just in
the digital environment but in the physical store environment, that are starting to experiment
with targeted coupons, so there would be a regular price on the shelf and then targeting
or personalization of prices would entail getting a special promotional offer for some
discount off the regular price. But that is just price discrimination. Your highest-willingness-
to-pay customer segments don't get an offer, so they pay the shelf price. That becomes
the high price. And then successively lower-willingness-to-pay segments get successively
better coupons to get deals or discounts off of that regular price.
[Hal Weitzman:] Is that the way to sidestep this issue of whether it's fair or not?
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] Well, it could still be perceived as unfair. Again, I still view fairness
as a subjective thing because we don't have a legal opinion or precedent on what is fair.
But if people found out that some customers got coupons and they didn't, this could be
perceived as being unfair. [Hal Weitzman:] Right. Has there been a backlash
against coupons? [Jean-Pierre Dubé:] Absolutely. First of all,
there's been in the media, the "Atlantic," for example, last year had a pretty scathing article
about the potential scope for unfairness and abuse of targeted marketing, especially prices.
The Council of Economic Advisers actually wrote an entire report in 2014 on targeted
marketing with big data, and then the following year, in 2015, wrote a second report that was
explicitly about differential pricing and big data. If we were to take that report at
face value, their prediction was it would be extremely unfair. The way they viewed it
as unfair—and I have to admit, the report mischaracterizes economic theory. I don't
think the report was carefully done—but suggests that differential pricing would expropriate
value from consumers and would then transfer that to shareholders of firms. And as I already
indicated earlier, that's not actually a theoretical per se outcome; that is theoretically plausible
for consumers as a whole to benefit from targeted pricing.
[Hal Weitzman:] OK. Sorry, go ahead, Jon.
[Jon Morris:] From what we see from the marketing side, very rarely are we having conversations
with our clients as we're talking about offers as it relates to fairness. It is more in a
conversation of: What can we do to maximize average order value? What can we do to maximize
the conversion rate? But I'll give you just some interesting nuance. If you go to the
shopping-cart page and you're ready to check out, and there's a little line that says put
in your coupon code to get a discount, oftentimes your conversion rate will drop, meaning
that the percentage of people who actually go to purchase decreases. Couple of reasons.
A: some of the people actually leave to go see if they can find a coupon code and they
miss that, and other people, as it relates to this feeling of fairness, feel like, hey,
someone else is getting something that I'm not, and so there's a negative emotional impact
that actually loses sales. It's interesting: there's some aspects that drive sales, but
in some aspects, it actually decreases the number of people who are willing to purchase because
of what you put onto that thank you page, rather that conversion page.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] And scientifically, this is actually an old phenomenon. Our resident
behavioral economists here at Booth would probably be eager to talk about the literature on transaction
utility. Economists tend to focus on the acquisition utility of products and services. Theoretically
I think of this as the consumption benefits, but it can be more. Transaction utility literally
indicates utility from the merits of the deal. The fact that I think I got a deal gives me
intrinsic utility. It's maybe psychological and perceptual, but as Jon's example indicates,
it can affect choice. The fact that I don't have a coupon but there's a slot for it that
indicates someone else might, might suddenly make me feel I'm getting less transaction
utility and paradoxically could affect the sale.
[Hal Weitzman:] Right. Which, it does seem like a fairness issue, no?
[Jon Morris:] From the consumer standpoint, they feel that if they're the ones that don't
have that coupon that they are being discriminated against in a negative way, and it impacts
oftentimes— [Hal Weitzman:] On the other hand, as you
say, it could be a huge opportunity, because even if you give someone 25 cents off a $300
transaction, they might feel like— [Jon Morris:] They feel like they won something.
[Hal Weitzman:] —they've got a good deal. When we're talking about personalization,
give us a sense—from your, you deal mainly with the marketing side--how personalized
is it? Is it really down to the individual? Presumably—you talk about creative—you can't make banner
ads for each person, so how personalized would be the banner ads that people see?
[Jon Morris:] It is actually going down to
the individual. There's a technical term called device stitching.
[Hal Weitzman:] Device stitching? [Jon Morris:] Device stitching. If you think
of an individual, they have a physical address, they have an email address, they have a
mobile-phone number, but they also have a few other things. They have a cookie ID. On their computer,
there's a cookie that is associated with them. They also have a device ID on their mobile
phone. Device stitching is trying to take all those different pieces and bring it so
that you are marketing to one individual. Rather than marketing to someone's laptop
and marketing to their mobile phone, you are marketing to an individual that happens to
have multiple devices. That's the first key element. Once you have that, then you want
to start layering in different data, such as: What is their transaction history? What have
they purchased in the past? You can put tags on websites, where you can literally monitor
every single thing a person does on a website. What sections did they read? What did they
put in the shopping cart but didn't purchase? What did they actually purchase? And so you
use that, and then you're getting into artificial intelligence, where the artificial intelligence
is determining, OK, for this creative, it's a template where there's different things
that you can . . . you know, the background image can change. The language can change. The product
you show can change. It's basically allowing you to do things at a scale that you've never
been able to do before. Because, if you have to create a creative for every single individual
and you have millions of customers, there's not enough money and time to be able to do
that in a cost-effective manner. But now, every single individual can get a completely customized
creative that is based on their attributes and what's unique to them.
[Hal Weitzman:] What proportion of companies do you think are really doing this to its
full extent now? [Jon Morris:] Based on a study I saw last
year, the entire market cap of personalized marketing is around $640 million, which is
tiny. The expectation by 2025 is $35 billion. What we're seeing now is clients are going
from talking about it to starting to earmark tens of millions of dollars to do personalization
in a major way. The hardest part, and the reason why it is in its infancy, is that companies
did not build their organizations and their data and their infrastructure with this concept
of doing personalized marketing, so all their data are in very siloed, disparate places
that oftentimes are hard to export, are hard to merge together. What's happening right
now is more in the way of investments in the data infrastructure.
How do we make it so that we can get our CRM
data, which is where all the "people" information is, with all the transaction data, with all
the loyalty data— [Hal Weitzman:] You mean those are housed
typically in different departments. [Jon Morris:] Very different departments.
Oftentimes there's political reasons, where someone doesn't want to give access to this
data and other people do want to give access to the data. But then you've gotta bring all
that data together. Once you have that data together, you have a major competitive advantage
because that's when you can start getting into personalized marketing at a scale like
no one else can. [Hal Weitzman:] OK, so it sounds like all
we have to do to make the revolution happen is to break down all the silos between the
deptarments, which should be very easy, right? In terms of—
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] It's not easy. [Hal Weitzman:] No, no, I'm being sarcastic.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] No, but yeah, it's actually amazing how many firms have all the resources they
need to be doing this, but this is really an org-design problem.
[Jon Morris:] Yep. [Hal Weitzman:] Right. It almost sounds like
the old marketing department does not work. The new marketing department is something
that has to link all the other departments together.
[Jon Morris:] One of the things that . . . we're talking to a major retailer right now, where
they're literally going through this transformation. They've earmarked tens of millions of
dollars for personalization. They are reducing budget across multiple groups and putting
a series of people that are forced to work together to build the infrastructure to create
this data. And what you'll find is publicly traded companies have a much harder time because
the organizational infrastructure is so built up over time, compared to PE-backed organizations
that have, I say, more nimbleness and the ability to bring this data together. Those
are some— [Hal Weitzman:] Presumably the older companies
have had it harder than newer companies. [Jon Morris:] Yep.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] Just take retail. If you compare Amazon to pick your favorite national
supermarket chain—as we know Amazon's now moving into the grocery space—Amazon has
hundreds of data scientists. They're hiring our PhD students now to come in and work with
their data. Amazon's infrastructure, their IT architecture is built around being able
to use data and make decisions on data. The surprising part of this is some of the stuff
that Amazon's doing—let's ignore the fact they have a digital platform, but just the
database stuff they're doing—most large supermarket chains could have been doing since the '90s.
Chains have been collecting individual customer data using loyalty cards for decades now.
The human capital required exists to implement and use these data, and implement targeting has
been around. In PhD programs, we've been teaching students how to do personalized pricing and
personalized marketing since the '90s. We have faculty here at Booth who wrote papers using
grocery-store loyalty data to design personalized-pricing strategies where every single customer
ID would have their own personalized price. So the methodology has existed. The understanding
of how to use data has existed for the better part of 20 years,
maybe 30 years. And the types of data you would need have been available to firms. This
is literally a constraint based on who's working for the firm—does somebody actually work
for the company that would know what to do with the data if they existed? Having the
data set up in a way that they're accessible and implementable. And then, of course, a volition
by the firm to implement these kinds of strategies in the first place.
[Hal Weitzman:] So, the same kind of things that are holding back completely personalized
marketing are holding back the personalized pricing?
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] There's obviously the fairness issue with pricing, which is a deterrent
for a lot firms to engage in it; but I think before even a firm would be ready to engage
in personalization, even if they wanted to do this, you would need to rethink how data
are shared, who's in charge of marketing— do you actually have people in marketing who
would now how to design and implement these strategies. There's just a lot of knowledge
and awareness that's missing. [Hal Weitzman:] So, in those 20 years, we haven't
made huge progress toward realizing the potential of these data that companies have been collecting.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] We should say 30 years because— [Hal Weitzman:] 30 years.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] Yes, 30 years. I'm thinking of papers that would seem very innovative
to a practitioner right now that were published in the early 1990s on exactly this topic.
[Hal Weitzman:] I was gonna ask, the next 30 years, is that when the barriers are gonna
be broken down, and we'll actually get to personalized marketing and personalized pricing?
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] What's happening, and this is largely in the digital space, Silicon
Valley in particular, is that more and more firms are now hiring a blend of personnel
that includes PhD-trained individuals with PhDs in economics, PhDs in marketing. They're
hiring actual tenured faculty in economics and in business schools to come in and be
chief economists. And I think the companies that have been doing that kind of change in
their personnel are also the ones that are engaging the most actively in these kinds of practices.
[Hal Weitzman:] OK. Jon Morris, what do you think is the future for personalized marketing
over the next few decades? [Jon Morris:] Couple of things. One, you're
starting to see VPs or SVPs of personalization. One of the things I personally believe is
you can't have a goal unless you put a budget against it.
[Hal Weitzman:] So, that's what J. P. was talking about, bringing in someone specifically
to bring all the data together. [Jon Morris:] Yep. There's actually budget
finally getting allocated to do this. But I think the biggest difference between the
past and the present is that the ability to leverage this data now is in a better place
than it has ever been. There also is a bunch of advertising technology companies out there
that allow you to leverage this data in a faster and more efficient manner than the
past. I believe that we are at that turning point where you're going to see--we're already
seeing it with our customers--that the number of customers willing to invest in this is
growing and growing. One great example is I've seen a multibillion dollar company that
created a start-up within its company to really sell pretty much the exact same product or
service, but because they wanted them to get away from the old infrastructure and the old
technology and be able to build from the ground up, they felt that it had to be outside their
walls. They built the entire data infrastructure that was necessary, and they did it at a fraction
of the cost because these legacy systems have layers and layers of different pieces of technology
on it that it's just too costly to manipulate, and so oftentimes you have to start over.
[Hal Weitzman:] OK. And Jean Pierre Dubé, you spoke persuasively against the idea that
this is unfair, but do you see the concerns about unfairness or about privacy, perhaps,
for data going away, ebbing away over the coming decades?
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] It's a lack of transparency. When I go to the movies, I know that I was
charged a high price because I'm a middle-aged adult and not a child or a senior, at
least not yet. When I go on the airlines, I have a slightly--it's still vague--but a
slight idea that I'm paying a higher price because it's a week until my flight and the
airline tickets get more expensive if you wait too long. In the digital domain, I think
the concern for a lot of people is just that lack of transparency. I got served up an offer.
My offer wasn't all that appealing. I find out that there's many other offers that were
much better, and I can't understand why I didn't get the better offer. And even worse
is this idea that the firm or the marketer is tracking what I'm doing, and somehow my
interactions with the firm in the past are gonna lead to less favorable interactions
in the future. So, in some sense, I'm worried: Am I gonna get punished for my loyalty? That,
of course, is an interesting question. Do we think that as customers become more attuned
to getting targeted offers, will they start altering their behavior to try and get better
offers? I'll give you an example. I ran some targeted promotional campaigns in China with
a telecom company, and the targeting scheme was meant to illustrate the new opportunities
for data. It wasn't really a big-data project, but it was about showing what is data. In
this particular case, we targeted based on real-time location. We used the GPRS signal
as an indicator of where you were in real-time, and then your proximity to the movie theater
was then deemed to be relevant to whether or not you're a prospective customer or not.
So, we targeted prices accordingly. And one of the concerns from the marketing folks on
this campaign was: over time, if people who are really far away from a movie theater are
getting systematically better offers on their SMS, does that mean that people might actually
stop dwelling in malls? Will I start dwelling somewhere else waiting for my offer and then
I'll go to the mall once I've received my offer? Once you do that, you're starting to
unwind the targeting scheme, and this brings us back to an important theoretical point that
targeted marketing works under the assumption that there's no arbitrage. As soon as customers
can decompose what it is you've done to target and are willing to change their behavior to
unwind the fences, targeting might not be so successful anymore.
[Hal Weitzman:] When we get to that point, we can sell personalized arbitrage software
for everyone to try and get the best coupon offer.
[Jean-Pierre Dubé:] Which happens. [Hal Weitzman:] Unfortunately, on that—we'll
have to come back and talk about it next time because unfortunately at the moment our time is up.
My thanks to our panel, Jean Pierre Dubé and Jon Morris. For more research, analysis,
and commentary, visit us online at Review.ChicagoBooth.edu,
and join us again next time for another "The Big Question."
Goodbye.
For more infomation >> Is personalized pricing the future of shopping? - Duration: 33:16.-------------------------------------------
Stacey Dash Is Running for Congress in California - Duration: 1:22.
Stacey Dash Is Running for Congress in California
Stacey Dash is running for Congress. The Clueless actress filed paperwork on Monday to run for Congress in Californias 44th Congressional District.
In the filing, Dash states her intent to run as a republican and lists her campaign website, dashtodc.com. Dash is seeking to challenge Rep.
Nanette Barragán, a democrat who currently holds the district seat. The district includes parts of South Los Angeles as well as the Los Angeles Harbor region.
The actress and political commentator tweeted about possibly running for political office in early February. A number of people online and off have suggested I run for political office.
I wanted to see what my online community thinks of this idea as I mull the possibilities. Thoughts? Dash tweeted on February 9. On Monday afternoon, she tweeted, Formal statements coming. For those mocking for the district I live in.open your minds.
Its time to for me to put up or shut up and I want to serve great people. I live in the 44th unlike some who dont live in their districts.
Thank you to those who offered their support. Dash also added, Come to my account for the straight news. What do you think about Dash running for Congress? Sound off in the comments!.
-------------------------------------------
LSU says there is no investigation into WIll Wade - Duration: 6:48.
For more infomation >> LSU says there is no investigation into WIll Wade - Duration: 6:48. -------------------------------------------
Monday's storm is not the only one in the forecast - Duration: 3:25.
For more infomation >> Monday's storm is not the only one in the forecast - Duration: 3:25. -------------------------------------------
Trey Gowdy Revealed A Secret About Russia That Proves Trump Is Innocent - Duration: 15:25.
Trey Gowdy Revealed A Secret About Russia That Proves Trump Is Innocent
Trey Gowdy is special counsel Robert Mueller's worst nightmare.
He just revealed a massive secret about Trump and Russia that the FBI was trying to cover
up.
And it completely proves Trump is innocent.
The entire basis for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was the fake news Christopher Steele
dossier.
We now know that it was a work of fan fiction funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democrat
National Committee.
But did Obama's FBI use it to spy on the Trump campaign by presenting it to the FISA
court as evidence to obtain warrants against Trump officials?
That has always been one big mystery.
And if the answer is "yes", it tears down the whole foundation of Robert Mueller's
witch hunt.
Trey Gowdy is on the case, and in an interview with Fox News he indicated the Obama administration
may have obtained the warrants under fraudulent pretenses.
Real Clear Politics reports:
"I AM INTERESTED IN WHO PAID FOR THE DOSSIER BECAUSE THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND MOTIVE AND
INTENT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN RELY ON THE DOCUMENT.
I AM MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI RELIED
UPON THAT DOSSIER AND INITIATING A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OR IN COURT FINDINGS.
THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME.
I DON'T EXPECT THE DNC TO BE OBJECTIVE.
ALMOST BY DEFINITION, OPPOSITION RESEARCH IS NOT OBJECTIVE.
I DO EXPECT AN ENTITY REPRESENTED BY A BLINDFOLDED WOMAN TO BE OBJECTIVE.
AND IF THEY RELIED ON THAT DOSSIER AND THEY DIDN'T CORROBORATE IT OR VET IT, THEN WE
HAVE A SERIOUS ISSUE AND THAT'S THE NEXT THING THAT HOUSE INTEL IS TRYING TO FIND OUT,
IS WHETHER OR NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RELIED ON IT…
…WELL, ACTUALLY, THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT JUST BEGINNING.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING FOR A LONG TIME TO GET THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE US ACCESS
TO THIS INFORMATION, AND FRANKLY IT TOOK THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE THIS WEEK TO TELL THE
DEPARTMENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY.
YOU KNOW, CHRIS, PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT WHEN I SAY THIS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY TRUE — IT'S
SOMETIMES HARD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OBAMA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE CURRENT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SHARE INFORMATION
WITH CONGRESS.
THIS IS A REALLY SIMPLE REQUEST.
DID YOU RELY ON THE DOSSIER?
AND IF SO, DID YOU VET IT BEFORE YOU RELIED UPON IT?
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT IN 30 SECONDS.
BUT IT'S TAKEN THREE MONTHS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND ONLY RECENTLY HAVE THEY AGREED
TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION.
SO, THE BATTLE IS NOT JUST WITH HOUSE DEMOCRATS.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S ALSO WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE ACCESS OF THE INFORMATION
WE NEED TO WRAP UP THIS INVESTIGATION."
Gowdy's inquiries into the dossier could prove once-and-for-all that the collusion
story was fake news invented by the Democrats and the media.
Their interest is in removing Trump from office, so they want to prop up the Mueller probe
for as long as possible to give him a chance to concoct evidence that can be used against
Trump.
But Gowdy is fighting to get the truth out as soon as possible.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments
in
this story.
-------------------------------------------
Conversations with Jim Zirin - Is "The Post" Historically Accurate or Fake News? - Duration: 26:42.
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
JIM: HI THERE.
I AM JIM ZIRIN.
WELCOME BACK TO MORE
"CONVERSATIONS." STEVEN
SPIELBERG'S "THE POST",
THE CINEMATIC DRAMATIZATION
ABOUT THE "WASHINGTON POST"
IN THE LANDMARK 1971
PENTAGON PAPERS CASE IS UP FOR
TWO OSCARS, BEST PICTURE OF
THE YEAR AND BEST ACTRESS
FOR MERYL STREEP'S EPIC
PORTRAYAL OF THE POSTS
PUBLISHER KATHARINE GRAHAM.
"THE POST" STRIKES A PARTICULAR
CHORD WITH ITS STORYLINE,
HIGHLY RELEVANT TO TODAY'S
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WITH
PRESS FREEDOMS UNDER SUCH
SHARP ATTACK.
BUT HOW FAITHFUL IS THE FILM TO
THE FACTS OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS
CASE? IS THE ROLE OF THE
WASHINGTON POST
EXAGGERATED OR OVERBLOWN,
OR JUST PLAIN FICTION?
WAS IN FACT THE "NEW YORK TIMES"
AND NOT THE "WASHINGTON POST"
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?
WE HAVE JAMES GOODALE, FORMER
COUNSEL OF THE "NEW YORK TIMES,"
WHO HELPED DIRECT THE LEGAL
FIGHT IN THE PENTAGON PAPERS
DRAMA. BUT ALSO THE FOUNDER
OF THIS PROGRAM. JIM GOODALE,
WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU
BACK.
JAMES: I'M GLAD TO BE HERE JIM.
JIM: GOOD. NOW, LET ME ASK YOU,
DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE?
JAMES: I SAW THE MOVIE.
JIM: WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE
MOVIE?
JAMES: I LIKED IT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS ENTERTAINING.
I THOUGHT MERYL STREEP
WAS TERRIFIC.
JIM: TOM HANKS?
JAMES: NOT SO TERRIFIC.
JIM: STEVEN SPIELBERG, DIRECTED
IT AND HOW WAS THE DIRECTION?
JAMES: I THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD
DIRECTION.
IT WAS A GOOD FILM BUT BAD
HISTORY.
JIM: BAD HISTORY.
THE FILM DEALS WITH THE DECISION
OF THE "WASHINGTON POST" TO
PUBLISH THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THE
PENTAGON PAPERS AND WHY IT WAS
SUCH A WEIGHTY DECISION.
JAMES: IT WAS VOLUMES OF HISTORY
EDITED BY LES GALB, FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
IT WAS A GREAT HISTORY.
IT WAS HUGE.
THE PROBLEM FROM A PUBLICATION
POINT OF VIEW IS THAT IT WAS ALL
CLASSIFIED.
IT WAS ALL CLASSIFIED,
TOP-SECRET.
SO THE QUESTION BECAME -- IS IT
LEGAL TO PUBLISH SOMETHING THAT
HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED, TOP-SECRET?
MY ANSWER TO THAT, SINCE I HAVE
BEEN IN THE INTELLIGENCE WORLD,
IS THE CLASSIFICATION STAMP
DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING.
I KNEW PERFECTLY WELL BECAUSE I
HAD STAMPED ARTICLES FOR THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" EMBEDDED IN THE
STUDY THAT I DID LIKE THE
PENTAGON PAPERS, THAT WERE TOP
SECRET.
JIM: GOOD ARTICLE.
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: VERY GOOD ARTICLES.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE TOP-SECRET.
WHILE THAT WAS MY POINT OF VIEW,
THE JOURNALISTS, THE OWNERS OF
THE PAPER WERE VERY CONCERNED
THAT THEY MIGHT GO TO JAIL, AND
I THINK THEY HAD SOME CONCERN,
NOT AS MUCH CONCERN AS THEY
THOUGHT, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT
TOOK GREAT COURAGE TO PUBLISH
THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
"NEW YORK TIMES," A FIRM CALLED
LORD DAY & LORD, NO LONGER WITH
US, ADVISE THE PUBLISHER OF THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" THAT HE WOULD
GO TO JAIL, AND THEY ALSO SAID
IT WOULD NOT LOOK AT THE PAPERS
BECAUSE THEY WOULD GO TO JAIL,
SO HE WAS SCARED TO DEATH.
JIM: WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOOT YOU
IF YOU LOOKED AT HIM.
JAMES: BESIDES BEING SCARED
HE WENT AHEAD AND PUBLISHED.
JIM: LET'S PAUSE FOR A MOMENT.
THEY RECEIVED A LETTER OF
WARNING FROM PRESIDENT NIXON'S
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN MITCHELL
TELLING THE "TIMES" NOT TO
PUBLISH.
JAMES: THAT IS CORRECT.
THE "TIMES" PUBLISHED FOR TWO
DAYS, AND THEN WE GOT THIS
TELEGRAM TELLING US TO STOP IT,
OR WE WILL STOP YOU IN COURT,
HERE IS THE STATUTE, AND YOU MAY
GO TO JAIL WAS THE IMPLICATION
SO FORTH AND SO ON.
JIM: SO, THAT WAS A DECISION,
JIM GOODALE, FOR YOU TO ADVISE
THE POWERS THAT BE AT THE "NEW
YORK TIMES," FORGET ABOUT GOING
TO JAIL, PUBLISH IT FIRST, GO TO
JAIL LATER.
WHAT INFORMED THAT DECISION?
JAMES: A COUPLE OF THINGS.
EMOTIONALLY, NIXON WAS AN ENEMY
OF THE PRESS AT THAT TIME, JUST
AS BAD AS TRUMP WAS.
SO THERE WAS A TIME TO MY TWO OR
THREE YEARS WHERE WE WENT
THROUGH A TRUMP SITUATION, SO IN
THAT FRAME OF MIND, YOU START
BUILDING YOUR DEFENSES IF YOU
ARE A LAWYER, WHAT IS GOING TO
HAPPEN, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
SO THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT
EXPERIENCE, I BECAME VERY
FAMILIAR WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
JIM: HOW FAMILIAR DO YOU HAVE TO
BE? IT JUST SAYS CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE NO LAW BRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
JAMES: YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
SO, BUT THE FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
HERBERT BROWNELL, VERY WELL
RESPECTED, GOOD GUY, HE SAID TO
THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL YOU
ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL --
JIM: THE PUBLISHER OF THE "NEW
YORK TIMES."
JAMES: YES.
I BECAME STEEPED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND THE BASIC CONCEPT
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE
REASON THAT WE HAVE IT WAS TO
STOP CENSORSHIP OF ANY KIND,
PARTICULARLY FROM THE COURTS.
SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PENTAGON
PAPERS WAS CALLED A PRIOR
RESTRAINT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THAT IS
WHY IT WAS WRITTEN.
THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
YOU ASKED ME, I KNEW I WAS GOING
TO WIN.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SAID.
JIM: YOUR ADVICE WAS TO PUBLISH.
JAMES: MY ADVICE WAS TO PUBLISH,
BUT I TOLD THEM OF THE RISK.
I DID NOT THINK THEY REALLY
LISTENED TO ME ON THAT POINT.
JIM: THE PAPERS THEMSELVES
REFLECTED BADLY ON THE TWO PRIOR
DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS
THAT PRECEDED NIXON AND THEY
WERE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.
WHY WAS NIXON SO HELL-BENT
IN STOPPING PUBLICATION IF HE
HAD BEEN THE CRAFTY GUY WE
ALL THINK OF HIM AS?
WHY DIDN'T HE SAY "LET IT RIP,"
THEN I CAN CRITICIZE JOHNSON
AND KENNEDY AND SAY IT'S ALL
THEIR FAULT.
JAMES: YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY?
HE WAS IGNORANT. HIS LAWYER
WAS JOHN MITCHELL --
JIM: WHO WENT TO JAIL LATER.
JOHN MITCHELL WENT TO JAIL.
JAMES: HE WENT TO JAIL, RIGHT,
AND HE HAD AN IMMINENT CAREER IN
NEW YORK OF BEING A BOND LAWYER,
AND HE CALLED NIXON AND TOLD
HIM, JOINING THE NEWSPAPER,
SO WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD
AND DO IT. BAD ADVICE.
THAT IS THE ORIGINAL REASON HE
DID IT IN LARGE PART, BUT HE
ALSO WAS GOADED BY HENRY
KISSINGER, BECAUSE KISSINGER
SAID TO HIM -- "YOU HAVE
GOT TO STOP THEM, OR YOU WILL BE
PERCEIVED AS BEING WEAK."
JIM: SO HOW MANY DAYS DID THE
"TIMES" PUBLISHED EXPERTS OF THE
PENTAGON PAPERS?
JAMES: THREE. THEY PUBLISHED
TWO BEFORE THEY GOT THE
TELEGRAM.
I TOLD THE "TIMES," IF SOMEONE
SENDS YOU A TELEGRAM,
YOU DON'T STOP PUBLISHING SO
THEY PUBLISHED A THIRD TIME.
THEN THEY GOT ENJOINED.
JIM: THEY WERE ENJOINED
PRELIMINARILY BY THE DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK.
SO THEY STOPPED PUBLISHING.
JAMES: THEY STOPPED PUBLISHING.
JIM: AND IN "THE
WASHINGTON POST".
JAMES: AND IN "THE WASHINGTON
POST" RIGHT.
JIM: WHICH IS WHAT THE MOVIE IS
ABOUT. IT'S AS IF NONE OF THIS
REALLY HAPPENED. ENTER "THE
WASHINGTON POST".
JAMES: DAN ELLSBERG WAS THE
PERSON WHO LEAKED THE PENTAGON
PAPERS.
HE WAS A LEAKER.
JIM: BAD GUY!
JAMES: I DIDN'T THINK SO.
JIM: DIDN'T KISSINGER SAY HE WAS
THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN
AMERICA?
JAMES: THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE --
HOW BAD ARE LEAKS.
THE PENTAGON PAPERS HAD 15 OR
20 ADDITIONS, SO TO SPEAK, OR
COPIES GIVEN TO THE RAND
CORPORATION.
THE RAND CORPORATION WAS
ADVISING THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE
U.S.-VIETNAM WAR.
HE COPIED THEM, WALKED OUT,
NOBODY STOPPED HIM.
HE STARTED SHOWING THEM TO
VARIOUS PEOPLE, HOPING HE WOULD
GET CONGRESS TO RELEASE IT, AND
HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY.
HE, HOWEVER FAILED, AND HE GAVE
THE COPIES TO NEIL SHEEHAN --
JIM: A REPORTER FOR THE "NEW
YORK TIMES," WHO AT TIMES WON A
PULITZER PRIZE FOR THE
PAPERS.
"WASHINGTON POST" DID NOT.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" WON A
PULITZER FOR WATERGATE, BUT THIS
WAS NOT WATERGATE.
WEREN'T THEY WORRIED THAT
THESE PAPERS WHO AT BEEN LEAKED
TO THEM BY ELLSBERG WERE
AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THAT WAS THE BIG QUESTION
FOR THE "TIMES," BECAUSE IF YOU
QUOTE ELLSBERG TODAY,
MOST PEOPLE KNOW WHO HE IS.
BUT THEN THE "TIMES" HAD TO
ASSUME THAT SOMEONE FROM THE
STATE DEPARTMENT HAD JUST PUT
THEM UNDER ONE'S ARM AND WALKED
OUT.
THE RISK WAS, FIRST OF ALL, THAT
THEY MIGHT BE FAKE.
SECONDLY, THAT THEY VIOLATED
NATIONAL SECURITY, SO THOSE WERE
BIG RISKS FOR THE "TIMES," WHICH
HAD TO DEAL WITH IT, AND IT TOOK
THREE MONTHS FOR THE "TIMES" TO
DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
JIM: WHAT ABOUT POSSESSION OF
STOLEN PROPERTY?
JAMES: I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS
AN ISSUE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAW, IF YOUR
AUDIENCE IS INTERESTED IN LAW-
JIM: WELL YOU'RE SUPPOSE TO
HAVE LAW, IT'S SUPPOSE TO BE
RELEVANT.
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: IT SEEMED LIKE THE ONLY
LAW THAT APPLIED WAS WITH
RESPECT TO THEFT OF JEEPS,
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY LIKE THAT,
BUT NOT COPYING --
JIM: IT WAS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY?
POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS COULD
COVER INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, IF
IT IS A COPYRIGHTED BOOK.
ANYWAY, YOU DID NOT THINK THAT
WAS AN ISSUE.
[LAUGHS]
JIM: THEY MIGHT HAVE GONE TO
JAIL FOR POSSESSION OF STOLEN
PROPERTIES. YOU ADVISED THEM
TO PUBLISH.
NEIL SHEEHAN HAD SPENT HOW MANY
MONTHS OF WORK TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE
AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THREE MONTHS.
JIM: HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF
THEY ARE AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: WHAT HE DID DURING THAT
THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS ASSEMBLED
STAFF, COUPLE OF LIBRARIANS,
PUT THEM IN THE HILTON
HOTEL, AND THEY STARTED LOOKING
AT EVERY BOOK THAT HAD BEEN
WRITTEN ABOUT THE VIETNAM WAR
AND THEY TOOK EVERY FACTUAL
STATEMENT OF ANY IMPORTANCE AND
TRIED TO CONNECT IT TO A
PUBLISHED FACTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THE PAPERS
HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE.
JIM: DID THEY FIND THAT MUCH OF
THIS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WAS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
JAMES: IT WAS PRETTY MUCH ALL IN
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
JIM: HOW MUCH OF IT WAS FACT,
AND HOW MUCH OF IT WAS OPINION?
A LOT OF IT WAS OPINION, RATHER
THAN FACT, WASN'T IT?
JAMES: WELL, IT WAS HISTORY, SO
YOU GET THE FACTS PUT IN ORDER,
WHICH REFLECTS AN OPINION.
IS AN OPINION CLASSIFIED?
YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE
THE CLASSIFICATION BECOMES
REALLY RATHER SILLY WHEN
YOU'RE DEALING WITH PUBLIC
DOMAIN MATERIAL THAT IS SOURCED
THROUGH THE "NEW YORK TIMES"
AND YOU ASK YOURSELF,
AND IT WAS SOURCED THROUGH
"THE NEW YORK TIMES",
HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT COME
IN AND PENALIZE SOMEONE FROM
PUBLISHING WHAT THEY'VE
ALREADY PUBLISHED.
THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES.
BUT THAT WAS THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLE.
JIM: WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION?
IT WAS THAT IT AFFECTED NATIONAL
SECURITY.
IT WOULD DO IRREPARABLE HARM
TO THE PUBLIC IF IT WAS
PUBLISHED, IT HAD CASES LIKE THE
PUBLICATION OF SHIP SAILING
DATES IN WARTIME, AND THE
SUPREME COURT SAID THAT COULD BE
ENJOINED BECAUSE IT IS
CLASSIFIED, AND WE HAVE TO
PROTECT THE STATE SECRETS.
WHY WASN'T THIS LIKE THAT?
WHY WASN'T IT SOMETHING THAT
THE PUBLIC WAS ENTITLED TO?
JAMES: THERE WERE TWO WAYS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO GET YOU.
IN THE TELEGRAM THAT THEY
SENT TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES,
THEY SAID YOU" ARE VIOLATING THE
ESPIONAGE ACT, WHICH BY
THE WAY IS FOR ESPIONAGE.
THAT IS WHY THEY TRIED TO STOP
THE "TIMES" FROM PUBLISHING.
IF SOMEBODY LEAKS
TO ANOTHER PERSON, THAT IS
HARDLY ESPIONAGE, BECAUSE THERE
IS NO DELIVERY TO A FOREIGN
POWER.
JIM: THERE IS NO OFFICIAL
SECRETS ACT, AS THEY DO IN
ENGLAND.
JAMES: THAT IS RIGHT.
WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT.
IN THE U.K., THE BRITS DON'T
HAVE IT. SO THE
GOVERNMENT HAD TO ATTACK US ON
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WAS A CASE
THAT IMPLY THAT IF YOU PUBLISHED
THE DATE OF A SAILING SHIP, THAT
YOU COULD STOP THAT UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.
THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, HAD NEVER
BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT.
EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS AN
ARTICULATION OF WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN BY THE SUPREME COURT,
THEY HAD NEVER DECIDED THAT
ISSUE, SO THERE WAS AN OPENING
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
MAKE AN ARGUMENT, IN THIS CASE,
THAT YOU COULD NOT PENALIZE THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" FOR PUBLISHING
THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
JIM: SO YOU GET SERVED WITH A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND
YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT, AND YOU
APPEARED BEFORE A JUDGE IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO
ENJOIN YOU, AND YOU ARE TRYING
TO RESIST IT, AND THERE IS A
HEARING.
WHAT HAPPENED?
[LAUGHTER]
JAMES: WELL, I FOUND ALL OF THIS
RATHER AMUSING.
JIM: YOU WERE NOT GOING TO JAIL!
JAMES: WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE
GOVERNMENT COMES IN, THEY PUT
SOMEBODY ON THE STAND TO SAY WHY
THESE WERE CLASSIFIED, THESE
DOCUMENTS.
AND IT TURNED OUT THAT HE DID
NOT REALLY CLASSIFY IT, HIS
GIRLFRIEND HAD
CLASSIFIED THEM. AND HIS
GIRLFRIEND HAD WORKED SOME
OTHER PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.
HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE PUT
A CLASSIFIED STAMP ON IT.
THAT WAS THE FIRST THING.
THAT WAS AN OPEN HEARING WHERE
THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS CAME IN,
AND THAT WAS IN THE VIETNAM WAR
PROTEST ERA.
AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A SECRET,
MYSTERIOUS HEARING DOWN IN THE
BASEMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT
BUILDING, AND THEY PULLED DOWN
THE SHADES.
THEY WENT DOWN THROUGH THE SAME
THING.
JIM: THAT IS WHERE WE USED TO
WATCH PORNOGRAPHY. TO SEE IF
THERE WERE PORNOGRAPHIC
SCENES.
JAMES: I DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS
SUCH A ROOM.
I WAS IMPRESSED.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE SAME
ARGUMENT AGAIN.
THIS IS WHY THIS IS CLASSIFIED.
I SAT THERE LOOKING AT THE
JUDGE, AND EVERY TIME THEY CAME
UP WITH ANOTHER REASON, HE WOULD
LOOK AT THEM LIKE SAYING "WHAT
THE HELL ARE YOU TELLING ME?"
AND BASICALLY, THEY WENT INTO
THIS SECRET AREA, AND THEY
COULD NOT PROVE ANYMORE THAT
THERE WERE SECRETS IN THERE THAT
DAMAGED NATIONAL SECURITY AND
WERE ABLE TO IN THE HEARING THAT
PROCEEDED, WHICH WAS IN OPEN
COURT.
JIM: SO WHILE YOU'RE DOING THIS,
AND THESE PEOPLE ARE TESTIFYING
AND SAYING I DIDN'T DO IT,
MY GIRLFRIEND DID,
"THE WASHINGTON POST" WAS
PUBLISHING!
JAMES: ELLSBERG, GOT A HOLD OF
THE COPIES AS I STARTED SAYING
EARLIER, HAD A WHOLE GROUP OF
FRIENDS, THEY STARTED SHIPPING,
GETTING READY TO SHIP THEM OUT,
AND THE FIRST PERSON, THE FIRST
ENTITY THAT THE GROUP SUBMITTED
THEIR PAPERS TO WAS THE
"WASHINGTON POST."
THEY DID NOT GET ALL, BUT THEY
GOT A BIG HUNK FROM ELLSBERG,
CALLED ONE OF THE "WASHINGTON
POST" REPORTERS, AND THEY HAD TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO PUBLISH THEM
OR NOT.
JIM: WHAT STEPS DID THEY TAKE TO
SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THE
PAPERS WERE AUTHENTIC?
JAMES: THEY DID NOT TAKE ANY,
REALLY.
I MEAN, THEY SPENT EIGHT HOURS
TRYING TO DO WHAT THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" HAD DONE IN
THREE MONTHS AND SO BASICALLY
THEY DIDN'T.
THEY TOOK THE FACT THAT THE
"TIMES" HAD PUBLISHED IT, AND
THEY COULD PUBLISH IT.
JIM: IN THE MOVIE, THERE IS A
WONDERFUL SCENE WHERE THEY SEND
A REPORTER POSING AS A DELIVERY
BOY INTO THE OFFICES OF THE
"NEW YORK TIMES," AND HE IS
ASKING IF THEY AUTHENTICATE IT,
THEY ALL SAID YES, HE
RUSHES BACK AND SAYS THEY ARE
AUTHENTIC, AND THEY ARE GOING TO
PUBLISH IT UNLESS WE PUBLISH IT.
DID ANY OF THAT HAPPENED?
JAMES: NO.
THAT IS ALL HOLLYWOOD.
JIM: I COULD NOT RUN INTO THE
PRESSROOM IN THE "NEW YORK
TIMES" AND LOOK OVER
ABE ROSENTHAL'S SHOULDER AND
SEE WHAT WAS ON HIS MIND.
JAMES: YOU HAVE TO GIVE
SPIELBERG SOME LICENSE TO MAKE
AN ENTERTAINING FILM.
BUT HE MADE UP SO MUCH AND PUT
THE WHOLE MATTER OUT OF KILTER.
IT IS HARD TO SAY THE FILM IS
AUTHENTIC.
IT MAY BE ENTERTAINING, BUT I DO
NOT THINK IT IS AUTHENTIC.
JIM: THE SCREENWRITER, MISS
HANNAH, SAID AFTER SHE READ AN
ARTICLE YOU WROTE IN THE "DAILY
BEAST" IN WHICH YOU DEBUNKED THE
MOVIE, SHE SAID THIS MOVIE IS
NOT ABOUT THE PENTAGON PAPERS IN
"THE POST" AT ALL, IT IS
ABOUT WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE AND
THE COURAGE OF KATHARINE GRAHAM
AND DECIDING TO PUBLISH.
WHAT TRUTH IS THERE TO THAT?
JAMES: SHE WENT ON A PROGRAM
AND SAID THIS IS A "WASHINGTON
POST" STORY.
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" HAS ITS OWN
STORY.
BUT WHAT ABOUT HISTORY?
IT DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH HISTORY.
WELL, "THE POST," THE PRODUCER,
STEVEN SPIELBERG, GOT HIMSELF IN
A REAL MESS WITH ALL OF THIS.
THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENED IS
SPIELBERG PUT OUT A PROMO SAYING
THEY WERE GOING TO DO A MOVIE
ABOUT "THE POST" AND THE PAPERS.
EVERYONE SCREAMED AND YELLED.
NOW IT WAS NO LONGER ABOUT "THE
POST" AND PAPERS.
IT WAS ABOUT "THE POST."
THEN THEY SAID IT IS NOT ABOUT
THE PAPERS, IT IS NOT REALLY
ABOUT "THE POST" AS IT IS ABOUT
KAY GRAHAM.
SO SPIELBERG HAD TO RETRACT,
RE-DO THE THEORY OF THE
MOVIE. AND THEN, THE SCRIPT
HAD LEFT OUT THE "NEW YORK
TIMES".
THE SCRIPT THAT HAD KAY GRAHAM
ARGUING BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT, SO SPIELBERG SAID HEY,
THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE
"NEW YORK TIMES." SO THEN THEY
WENT AND HIRED ANOTHER
WRITER, WHO HAD DONE THE
"BOSTON GLOBE" STORY ON
SPOTLIGHT AND WON THE
PULITZER PRIZE. THE NEW WRITER
CAME IN AND ADDED ON THE
"NEW YORK TIMES" PART SO
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOVIE,
IT STARTS WITH THE "NEW YORK
TIMES," BUT IT'S JUST AN
ADD-ON, AND THEN IT GOES TO "THE
POST," AND "THE POST" GOES
OUT SCREAMING TRIUMPANT
PUBLISHER.
JIM: SO IN YOUR VIEW, DID
KAY GRAHAM SHOW COURAGE
IN DECIDING TO PUBLISH?
THEY MAKE IT APPEAR IN THE
MOVIE THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST
MAJOR DECISION SHE HAD TO MAKE
AS PUBLISHER OF "THE POST, BUT
SHE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT YEARS.
SHE WASN'T NEW TO MAJOR
DECISIONS.
SHE DECIDED TO PUBLISH.
NOW SHE DID HAVE A PENDING
PUBLIC OFFERING, WHICH MIGHT
HAVE BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF
THE GOVERNMENT HAD INDICTED "THE
POST," OR IF THEY HAD TAKEN
TERRIBLE ACTION AGAINST "THE
POST."
SOME COURAGE WAS INVOLVED.
MAYBE LESS COURAGE-
JAMES: NO QUESTION SOME COURAGE
BECAUSE YOU ARE PUBLISHING
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, BUT THE
IDEA THAT THEY WERE ASSUMING THE
RISK OF GOING TO JAIL AND ALL
THAT SORT OF THING WAS EASY FOR
HER TO ASSUME.
AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH IN
THE MOVIE ABOUT THAT DECISION.
EASY?
SHE KNEW THE "TIMES" HAD DONE
IT, AND SHE KNEW THE "TIMES"
HAD DONE IT WITH LEGAL ADVICE.
THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM.
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PUBLISH
SOMETHING THAT WAS FAKE.
THOSE TWO ITEMS, WHICH WAS VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THE "NEW YORK
TIMES," AND THE BASIS OF THEIR
DECISION REALLY DID NOT APPLY TO
HER.
WHAT DID APPLY TO HER AND NOT TO
THE "TIMES" WAS, AS YOU SAID,
SHE HAD A PUBLIC OFFERING.
IN THE MOVIE, IT WAS DEPICTED
AS PROVIDING MONEY FOR
REPORTERS AT THE "WASHINGTON
POST," IN OTHER WORDS, IF I DO
NOT IN THIS OFFERING, I WILL NOT
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO STAY IN
BUSINESS.
I DECIDED TO GO LOOK AT THE
OFFERING.
THE OFFERING WAS TO PAY HER
ESTATE TAXES AND ALSO TO PAY OFF
EXECUTIVES WHO HAD GOTTEN HUGE
MILLION-DOLLAR OPTIONS.
30 YEARS AGO, $1 MILLION WAS A
MILLION DOLLARS.
THERE WAS NO ONE TO BUY THEM
OUT.
THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE
TREASURY OF THE "WASHINGTON
POST" HAD TO BUY OUT THEIR KEY
EMPLOYEES, SO THEY THOUGHT OF
THIS IDEA WELL, WE WON'T DO
THAT. WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC.
SO THE PUBLIC'S MONEY
COMES IN AND BUYS THEM OFF.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
JIM: SHE WANTED THE PUBLIC
OFFERING TO GO THROUGH.
JAMES: YOU KNOW WHAT,
SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE
PUBLIC OFFERING?
YOU KNOW WHY SHE DID NOT WANT TO
HAVE THE PUBLIC OFFERING?
BECAUSE THAT MEANT HER FAMILY
HAD TO GIVE UP SOME CONTROL TO
THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
COULD THEN HAVE A BOARD.
SHE DID NOT WANT TO DO IT.
HER ADVISOR WAS A NEW YORK
LAWYER, AS WE ARE, SUPPOSEDLY
THE PINNACLE OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION IN NEW YORK, FRITZ
BEEBE, SAID HEY, YOU HAVE GOT
TO DO IT, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE
ANY MONEY TO PAY OFF THOSE
EMPLOYEES.
SO SHE DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS
TOO MUCH.
HOWEVER, SHE HAD AGREED TO DO
IT, AND SHE WAS TOLD IT WAS A
POSSIBILITY THE WHOLE THING
WOULD FALL APART.
SO THAT WAS NOT AN EASY DECISION
TO MAKE, BUT IT WAS COURAGEOUS
IN THE SAME EXTENT.
BUT IT WASN'T EASY.
JIM: OKAY, SO THE "TIMES" CASE
ROLLS ON, THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIES THE INJUNCTION
BUT THERE'S A STAY,
IT GOES TO THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. SOME JUDGES THINK
YOU SHOULD PUBLISH, SOME JUDGES
THINK YOU SHOULD NOT PUBLISH, SO
THEY KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD,
AND YOU HAVE THE GOVERNMENT
EXACTLY WHERE YOU WANT IT IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT. WHAT
WERE YOUR EMOTIONS AS YOU
LISTENED TO THE JUDGES AND YOU
LISTENED TO THE LAWYERS
ARGUE THE CASE?
JAMES: I CANNOT SAY THAT I WAS
NOT A LITTLE SCARED.
THE SUPREME COURT IS SUCH A
MAGIC, A MAJESTICAL PLACE.
HERE WE HAD GONE FROM VIETNAM
PROTESTERS HISSING AT THE
JUDGES, CROWDS OF PEOPLE
FOLLOWING US, AND IT WAS A NOISY
TWO WEEKS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU ARE IN
TOTAL QUIET.
YOU REALIZE THAT THE DIGNITY OF
THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO LOOK
AT THIS THING THAT YOU HAVE
LIVED WITH FOR A PERIOD OF TIME,
AND YOU DID NOT KNOW HOW IT IS
GOING TO COME OUT.
JIM: THE ARGUMENTS ARE -- DID
YOU FEEL YOU HAD WON IT?
JAMES: I THOUGHT WE HAD WON IT.
I TOOK A VOTE WITH THE OTHERS
WHO WERE WITH ME,
AND OTHERS SAID YOU LOST.
JIM: WHEN YOU LEARNED, I GUESS
A FEW WEEKS LATER
THAT YOU'D WON THE CASE
7-2.
JAMES: 6-3.
JIM: THREE JUDGES WERE AGAINST
YOU, SIX WERE FOR YOU.
6-3, YOU WON THE CASE,
WHAT WERE YOUR EMOTIONS AT
THAT TIME?
JAMES: I WAS PRETTY HAPPY.
JIM: JAMES GOODALE WAS PRETTY
HAPPY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, JAMES
GOODALE BECAUSE WE'VE COME
TO THE END OF OUR TIME, AND
THE QUESTION IS, IS "THE POST"
THE MOVIE FAKE NEWS?
JAMES: YES, IT IS.
JIM: JAMES GOODALE, THANKS FOR
COMING BY AND THANK YOU FOR
COMING BY.
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR MORE
"CONVERSATIONS."
I'M JIM ZIRIN.
ALL THE BEST AND TAKE CARE.
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét