Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Brandon Webb, former abcal in New York Times
Speaker 1: bestselling author. If you're like me, you want real security
Speaker 1: and defense news you can trust. You're probably tired of
Speaker 1: hearing the same talking heads, guys who have never seen
Speaker 1: the front lines, saying the same bs a hundred different ways.
Speaker 1: It's why I founded soft rep dot com military grade
Speaker 1: news produced entirely by our staff of military veteran journalists.
Speaker 1: Sign up at soft rep for real news, real experience,
Speaker 1: real experts. Soft rep does what the mainstream media can't,
Speaker 1: deliver authentic content straight from the front lines. Sign up
Speaker 1: for a free trial membership today and I'll give you
Speaker 1: my best selling e book, The Red Circle for free.
Speaker 1: But that's not all. Your Softwrep membership also includes access
Speaker 1: to cutting edge defense and security news by military experts,
Speaker 1: access to our award winning documentaries, e books, special member events,
Speaker 1: and much more. So what are you waiting for? Let
Speaker 1: us know you're in Sign up for your free trial
Speaker 1: membership today. Join our community at soft rep dot com.
Speaker 1: That's s o f r EP dot com. Ah beat force.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't work, you're just not using enough. You're
Speaker 1: listening to software radio, special operations, military news and straight
Speaker 1: talk with the guys and the community. How do you
Speaker 1: think that coronavirus we named back basic military training and recruitment. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're already seeing an impact basic military training, right,
Speaker 1: and uh, just about every branch and even the different
Speaker 1: installations that conduct basic training for the different branches, have
Speaker 1: approached different efforts to kind of curb the spread of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen within the training facility but also within the
Speaker 1: professionals that do the training. Right, We've seen that work
Speaker 1: more or less effectively, But it looks like moving forward,
Speaker 1: what just about every branch is going to do is
Speaker 1: a they're gonna screen recruits and trainees prior to shipping them.
Speaker 1: But that screening is usually a temperature measurement and things
Speaker 1: like that, which doesn't necessarily tell you that a person
Speaker 1: isn't carrying the coronavirus, right, It just tells you that
Speaker 1: they're not exhibiting symptoms. So then they're screened again upon arrival.
Speaker 1: And now the Marine Corps I know, for instance, but
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure every other branch at this point is
Speaker 1: putting those trainees and recruits into a fourteen day basically
Speaker 1: training hiatus immediately upon arrival. So effectively, any recruit or
Speaker 1: trainee that ships out today doesn't actually start their basic
Speaker 1: training until around two weeks after they arrive, which means
Speaker 1: for the Marine Corps, your thirteen week recruit training is
Speaker 1: now fifteen weeks. What makes that kind of even more
Speaker 1: stressful on the other end is that most of these
Speaker 1: branches are also now canceling liberty and leave following basic
Speaker 1: training in order to limit exposure to family members in
Speaker 1: the public at large, to try to stop someone who
Speaker 1: just made it through training from suddenly contracting the virus. Right,
Speaker 1: we're kind of keeping them insulated from the public from
Speaker 1: the minute they get there into en doc all the
Speaker 1: way to when they reach the fleet or are the
Speaker 1: larger force. Right, how effective is that? I think that
Speaker 1: it's going to be a great deal more effective then
Speaker 1: it's been. I still think that we're going to see
Speaker 1: people test positive for the coronavirus for COVID nineteen in
Speaker 1: training environments. And although you know a lot of people
Speaker 1: are thinking right now, but those are eighteen nineteen year
Speaker 1: olds and great health that are training to serve in
Speaker 1: the military. They're not really a high risk population. And
Speaker 1: that's absolutely true. But we have to worry about readiness
Speaker 1: if the entire force is sick at once, even though
Speaker 1: the survival rate is extremely high, having the force sick
Speaker 1: really compromises our ability to not just defend the nation,
Speaker 1: but to fulfill our security obligations. Right like, America's military
Speaker 1: apparatus is a global military infrastructure, not because we're at
Speaker 1: war in every region, but because we're a stabilizing presence
Speaker 1: in many regions. Right and this is the reason why
Speaker 1: you see things like the Truman, the Nimics carrier. Truman's
Speaker 1: just gonna stay out to see right now, even though
Speaker 1: deployment is over, we're trying to make sure that we've
Speaker 1: got at least two operational carriers that can respond to
Speaker 1: any sort of situation that might pop up. So we're
Speaker 1: definitely going to see this be an issue for training
Speaker 1: moving forward, and we're definitely going to see this being
Speaker 1: an issue for readiness moving forward. But with that said,
Speaker 1: I think that the military has been I would contend,
Speaker 1: more proactive than the federal government has been toward our
Speaker 1: civilian population. The military started in enacting general pandemic procedures
Speaker 1: very early, prior to the US taking any real, real
Speaker 1: effective action, and because of that we didn't see a
Speaker 1: lot of tests, a lot of positive tests, and the
Speaker 1: military early on, we're now seeing a great deal more
Speaker 1: of it. But again, survival rate is going to be
Speaker 1: extremely high. It's really a question of readiness and it's
Speaker 1: a question of standard of living, of quality of life. Right.
Speaker 1: We don't want these service members to hate their lives
Speaker 1: in service, but we also need to keep them safe. Right.
Speaker 1: These are the same thing off that we're asking each
Speaker 1: other about going to Walmart out here in the civilian world. Right,
Speaker 1: we want to maintain our quality of life. We also
Speaker 1: want to mitigate risk, and when it comes to the military,
Speaker 1: we need to be prepared to answer the call any
Speaker 1: time that it's given. So I think that the challenge
Speaker 1: is bigger for the military than it might be for
Speaker 1: a lot of us out here in the civilian world,
Speaker 1: because they're expected to maintain that readiness level to the
Speaker 1: highest level that we can possibly do, despite being faced
Speaker 1: by the same threat that the rest of us are. Right, So,
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see more changes, but I
Speaker 1: think the changes that they've already made are generally in
Speaker 1: the right direction. Do you think that that the military's
Speaker 1: reaction has been better because of the there's a unit
Speaker 1: of command as opposed to the federal and state governments,
Speaker 1: which are essentially acting on their own. I think that
Speaker 1: really speaks to a lot of it. And I and
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily fault the government for not being able
Speaker 1: to take as concise action as the military has, because
Speaker 1: you know, you see in places like Taiwan where they
Speaker 1: did a really good job kind of bottling up this
Speaker 1: issue very quickly, right and you saw it again in China,
Speaker 1: along with a great deal of misinformation and disinformation. But
Speaker 1: you did see China take very very abrasive, I would say,
Speaker 1: harsh action in order to curb the spread of this virus.
Speaker 1: In the United States, we tend not to be accepting
Speaker 1: of that type of thing from our government in the
Speaker 1: United States, even now when we have a federal government
Speaker 1: that that's led by you know, I would say the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has tried their best to stay as hands
Speaker 1: off as they can for a number of good reasons.
Speaker 1: Keeping the onus of responsibility on the state level, at
Speaker 1: the governor level. I think that it's much better for
Speaker 1: messaging because if Donald Trump ordered the nation to lockdown
Speaker 1: number one, it would have an effect on the economy.
Speaker 1: But number two, there's a lot of very liberal states
Speaker 1: with local governments that are at odds with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration a lot of times. So by instead letting that
Speaker 1: state's local government enact hey, we're gonna shelter at home,
Speaker 1: as opposed to it being a federal mandate, I think
Speaker 1: it's better received by many. But but the truth is
Speaker 1: is that America at large as a whole is compromised
Speaker 1: to a certain degree and our ability to respond to
Speaker 1: this stuff just because we're so fervent in defending our liberties.
Speaker 1: I would argue maybe not so much when it comes
Speaker 1: to things like freedom of speech or you know, the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, but we're very fervent and defending against inconvenience.
Speaker 1: As Americans, we do not want to be inconvenienced. I
Speaker 1: do not want not just inconvenience. Obviously, some people out
Speaker 1: there are in terrible circumstances right now, but in the
Speaker 1: United States, we don't want to be told we can't
Speaker 1: go to the store. We don't want to be told
Speaker 1: that we can't go to parties with our friends. And
Speaker 1: when we're told by the government that we can't. Among
Speaker 1: a certain population of Americans, I think that that's seen
Speaker 1: as as an overt step towards fascism, and they want
Speaker 1: to stand up against it. So they go when they
Speaker 1: act in what I would consider to be irresponsible behavior,
Speaker 1: They're gonna go to the beach anyway. They're gonna go
Speaker 1: part party anyway, because the government can't tell me what
Speaker 1: to do. Now, the government wouldn't need to tell us
Speaker 1: what to do if we all took personal individual responsibility,
Speaker 1: which I think is the backside of that liberty coin
Speaker 1: that we in America have sort of lost sight of
Speaker 1: to a certain extent. With liberty comes responsibility, right. Uh,
Speaker 1: The reason why you want to be freedom from the
Speaker 1: free from the government is because you want to be
Speaker 1: self reliant. If you're not self reliant and you want
Speaker 1: freedom from the government, what you're asking for is a
Speaker 1: bad situation. But if you're responsible, if you make decisions
Speaker 1: that if everyone acted like you, things would generally go okay,
Speaker 1: then you don't need the government to step in and
Speaker 1: say nobody can go to the mall, nobody can go
Speaker 1: to the store, because logically speaking, the concern about our
Speaker 1: loved ones, the concern about our neighbor who's sixty five
Speaker 1: and has diabetes, the concern about people we don't even
Speaker 1: know but share this country with us should have been
Speaker 1: enough to encourage a lot of Americans to to really
Speaker 1: reign in their their behavior. But for better or worse,
Speaker 1: and sometimes it is for the better, but for better
Speaker 1: or worse. Many Americans tend to be sort of shortsighted
Speaker 1: and selfish when it comes to things like this. They
Speaker 1: think about how this affects me and how I feel,
Speaker 1: without necessarily worrying about the second and third order effects
Speaker 1: because they're not always easy to see, right. So, I
Speaker 1: think that the military definitely was better positioned because at
Speaker 1: the from the very top of the chain of command
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump all the way down to the very
Speaker 1: bottom of the chain command with brand new recruits, uh,
Speaker 1: there is a very clear order of authority and you
Speaker 1: either do what you're told or you're going to be
Speaker 1: processed out right. So I really think that the military
Speaker 1: was better suited to manage this strictly because of that
Speaker 1: train of command. I think that the United States is
Speaker 1: at a disadvantage as compared to countries like China or
Speaker 1: some other countries that are able to kind of enforce
Speaker 1: the governmental will on the people. But that's part of
Speaker 1: what's great about the United States. Right, So we need
Speaker 1: to find a way to get through this without compromising
Speaker 1: those things that do make us special, those things that
Speaker 1: do make us great. We've got to find a balance,
Speaker 1: you know. Speaking of China, let's let's talk about numbers
Speaker 1: and what do you think about the reporting and information operations.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know that you you're connected to a
Speaker 1: lot of the same guys that I am, and I
Speaker 1: think it's fair to say that we've both heard a
Speaker 1: lot of things out of China that do not reflect
Speaker 1: China's general narrative. Right. I also think that China as
Speaker 1: a whole maintains very strict control over narrative, both within
Speaker 1: the country and outside it. Right. I obviously I wrote
Speaker 1: a lot about this for software. China from day one
Speaker 1: was managing the narrative associated with this coronavirus. Right. They
Speaker 1: were managing it internally by censuring doctors, but they were
Speaker 1: managing it externally by making sure that the world didn't
Speaker 1: see this as quite what it was until it was
Speaker 1: too late and they couldn't hide it anymore. Right. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, we need to think about
Speaker 1: what China's long term goals are and even though this
Speaker 1: coronavirus thing I do believe was very much unintentional and
Speaker 1: and very likely came about naturally. I think that you
Speaker 1: can absolutely see where they're trying to position themselves to
Speaker 1: make this bad situation work in their favor. Right as
Speaker 1: the United States struggles to curb the spread of the coronavirus,
Speaker 1: and we do so openly, we do so very publicly.
Speaker 1: America's numbers are not a secret, America's efforts are not
Speaker 1: a secret, and the popular responses are not a secret.
Speaker 1: It gives opportunity for us to look as though we're
Speaker 1: managing this as compared to a nation like China, which,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I think is that
Speaker 1: our intent when it comes to this perception management campaign,
Speaker 1: they want to emerge as the global leader. In general,
Speaker 1: China's general plan for the future is to replace the
Speaker 1: United States as the coblematic and economic leader of the world.
Speaker 1: And in order to do that, they also need to
Speaker 1: expand their military force a great deal, because, as we know,
Speaker 1: America's military infrastructure supports a great deal of its global
Speaker 1: economic and diplomatic infrastructure. Right, China, using our post World
Speaker 1: War two playbook to entice Third World nations with things
Speaker 1: like the Belt and Road Initiative and other programs that
Speaker 1: involve large loans two nations that do not necessarily have
Speaker 1: a great credit history, with the understanding that if these
Speaker 1: nations default on these debts, China is going to have
Speaker 1: a great deal of leverage over them, and even if
Speaker 1: they don't default, having the debt gives China a great
Speaker 1: deal of leverage over them. China needs to establish foreign
Speaker 1: ports so that it can resupply its naval vessels. A
Speaker 1: lot of people don't realize even if you have nuclear power,
Speaker 1: which China's new carriers likely will, you still need resupply
Speaker 1: and most of your carrier strike group, even for the
Speaker 1: United States, is a nuclear power, you know you need diesel.
Speaker 1: Our destroyers do not have nuclear reactors on the China
Speaker 1: needs friendly ports all around the world so that they
Speaker 1: can do what we do, which is number one, trade
Speaker 1: all around the world, but number two leverage your own
Speaker 1: infrastructure for power over others diplomatically, economically, particularly economically in
Speaker 1: the South China SEAE. So how does that inform what's
Speaker 1: going on with the coronavirus. A bad situation happened in China,
Speaker 1: but because China is able to immediately grab hold of
Speaker 1: the narrative both internally and externally. They're able to shape
Speaker 1: this story to benefit them. Now, the United States is
Speaker 1: not playing by those rules. Right now. The United States is,
Speaker 1: i would argue, waging a narrative campaign against China. China
Speaker 1: started it first by hiding information about the coronavirus and
Speaker 1: then by launching a campaign within their borders aimed at
Speaker 1: telling the Chinese population that the American army introduced this
Speaker 1: virus into China. So now the United States is responding.
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't believe that the COVID nineteen was intentionally
Speaker 1: released by a bio weapons facility, but the United States
Speaker 1: and headlines you know today and yesterday, has been saying
Speaker 1: that they're investigating that possibility. By saying that we're investigating
Speaker 1: the possibility, we're opening ourselves up to the ability to
Speaker 1: say it wasn't true. But that doesn't matter today. People
Speaker 1: remember the headlines less so than the corrections. Right So
Speaker 1: the United States is actively fighting back in terms of narrative.
Speaker 1: And this is actually why I would defend Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: use of the phrase Chinese virus. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people want to color that as racial uh and
Speaker 1: I think Donald Trump may well have UH set precedent
Speaker 1: for people to to assume that it is race based.
Speaker 1: But in this instance, the virus very much did come
Speaker 1: from China, and China genuinely is trying to frame the
Speaker 1: narrative as though America did it so by saying the
Speaker 1: Chinese virus, I see that as Donald Trump's perhaps ham
Speaker 1: fisted attempt at putting the onus back on China where alongs.
Speaker 1: But do you think that China's information and operations will backfire,
Speaker 1: especially in the countries that have been affected the most.
Speaker 1: So let's take for example, Italy, France, that I mean
Speaker 1: the United States, it's a no brainer. But other countries
Speaker 1: that do have an important Chapolica role. I think it
Speaker 1: all comes down to money and China. So China and
Speaker 1: Russia are both very active in the influence world right
Speaker 1: and the gray as gray zone right now, for those
Speaker 1: who may not be familiar with the phrase, gray zone,
Speaker 1: operations tend to be aggressive acts that fall short of
Speaker 1: being a catalyst of war. Right, and our gray zone
Speaker 1: has grown exponentially since the Cold War, the reason being
Speaker 1: that now that there are nuclear powers in this world,
Speaker 1: now that we all tend to be more or less
Speaker 1: economically interdependent. A large scale war between a nation like
Speaker 1: the United States and a nation like Russia or China
Speaker 1: would have massive repercussions, right, So because of that, we
Speaker 1: have reined in what we would consider aggressive enough for
Speaker 1: US to declare open war. We know Russia has used
Speaker 1: hackers to infiltrate the national electrical grid. We know that
Speaker 1: Russia has tried to conduct assassinations on foreign soil and
Speaker 1: has successfully conducted some. We know that China exerts a
Speaker 1: great deal of influence over American media. We saw that firsthand,
Speaker 1: uh earlier this year with you know, maybe last year now,
Speaker 1: who knows what the coronavirus, but with the NBA. Right,
Speaker 1: China has a great deal of influence. But where Russia
Speaker 1: uses force and aggression, China's influence comes disguised as big
Speaker 1: bags of money. Right. And so I think that while
Speaker 1: there's a good potential that there will be blowback on
Speaker 1: China for it's managing of this, I think that what
Speaker 1: we're going to see is a lot of nations kind
Speaker 1: of saying let's let bygones be bygones, because we stand
Speaker 1: to lose too much financially by being critical of China
Speaker 1: about this in the midst of what very well is
Speaker 1: going to become a global recession. China is still going
Speaker 1: to have one of the largest markets in the world.
Speaker 1: China is still going to have one of the faster
Speaker 1: developing economies in the world, and people are still going
Speaker 1: to want access to those markets. So on the national level,
Speaker 1: I think it's unlikely that we're going to see nations
Speaker 1: that aren't on very sure economic footing trying to hold
Speaker 1: China's feet to the fire. I think just they can't
Speaker 1: afford to. They would be closing themselves off tot of
Speaker 1: the biggest markets in the world, the other being in
Speaker 1: the US and UH. For a lot of nations, that's
Speaker 1: too much to be worth the risk. Although I could
Speaker 1: be wrong. I like it when i'm wrong because I
Speaker 1: tend to be an alarmist so hopefully accountable. But I
Speaker 1: think it's a little unlikely, at least in less financially
Speaker 1: developed nations. Hi, I'm Brandon Webb, former a sal and
Speaker 1: founder of the Craig Club. Are you tired of scrambling
Speaker 1: to figure out the perfect Father's Day gift for the
Speaker 1: most important guy in your life? I think they like
Speaker 1: military grades survival gear deliver directly to their doorstep. Then
Speaker 1: join over two and fifty thousand members and gear up
Speaker 1: with Craig Club, the box built by Navy Seals, Army rangers,
Speaker 1: and special ops guys. Sign up and Craig Club will
Speaker 1: send you high class military grade gear like backpacks, flashlights, hammocks, holsters,
Speaker 1: vests and more. That means whatever your favorite guys into
Speaker 1: it will come right to his doorstep. Then he'll have
Speaker 1: the confidence of a Navy seal that it's going to
Speaker 1: get the job done. Subscribe at Craig Club today and
Speaker 1: we'll go even further. We're including a free copy of
Speaker 1: my best selling e book, The Killing School, about America's
Speaker 1: elite snipers. I'm Brandon Webb and I can't wait to
Speaker 1: raise the grade on military gear in America. So let
Speaker 1: me know you're in. Sign up today at Craig club
Speaker 1: dot com, c R A T E Club dot com,
Speaker 1: Economical Campact. Do you think that the post COVID word
Speaker 1: would see a US less dependent on manufacturing off in China, So,
Speaker 1: for example, we would I don't think it's I think
Speaker 1: it is feasible, but I think that something that a
Speaker 1: lot of US don't consider a lot in our day
Speaker 1: to day lives here in the United States, is that
Speaker 1: our standard of living is not sustainable on a global scale. Right,
Speaker 1: the United States maintains a very high standard living, as
Speaker 1: do many European nations, as do certain individuals in China. Right,
Speaker 1: But ultimately, at the end of the day, we're all
Speaker 1: effectively tied into a battle over resources. We don't realize it,
Speaker 1: we don't think about it in our day to day activities,
Speaker 1: but when you're trying to stretch your paycheck, that very
Speaker 1: much is you trying to get the most resources you
Speaker 1: can for what you have on hand. Right, it's the
Speaker 1: barter system. We've just made it complicated with our overarching
Speaker 1: economic infrastructure. Right. Because of that, I think that we
Speaker 1: don't realize the same way a lot of times, we
Speaker 1: don't realize how undocumented immigrants. Illegal immigrants hold up a
Speaker 1: huge portion of the American agricultural infrastructure. We don't realize
Speaker 1: that by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants, orange
Speaker 1: juice is going to go up by five bucks a
Speaker 1: gallon the same way, we don't realize that by bringing
Speaker 1: all of our manufacturing infrastructure back to the United States
Speaker 1: is going to result and a dramatic increase in cost
Speaker 1: for the products that we buy, simply because in the
Speaker 1: US there are laws that force you to treat your
Speaker 1: employees in a certain way, whereas in China you can
Speaker 1: get away with a lot worse. So America has a
Speaker 1: love affair with Chinese goods, from the individual buyer all
Speaker 1: the way up to the CEO worrying about the bottom
Speaker 1: line of his fortune, simply because you get more for
Speaker 1: your dollar. And in the US, we would need to
Speaker 1: have a really big cultural shift for us to decide
Speaker 1: as a people that we would rather spend twenty on
Speaker 1: a T shirt than five to ten dollars on a
Speaker 1: T shirt in order to ensure that the people who
Speaker 1: made the T shirt we're paid a living wage, didn't
Speaker 1: have to live in a labor camp things like that.
Speaker 1: Right Whereas right now we get these products from China,
Speaker 1: we do not think at all about where they come from.
Speaker 1: We just think about the fact that this funny shirt
Speaker 1: only costs five dollars. Right. We have to be willing.
Speaker 1: And when I say willing, I don't just mean people
Speaker 1: like you and I who are fortunate enough that we
Speaker 1: could probably afford to buy a T shirt. For ten
Speaker 1: dollars instead of five. But there are some people out
Speaker 1: there who maybe can't make that decision so readily right,
Speaker 1: and those people are going to continue to rely on
Speaker 1: inexpensive goods. They're going to continue to rely on companies
Speaker 1: that produce in expensive goods and until we shift culturally
Speaker 1: and economically away from buying stuff from the cheapest bidder,
Speaker 1: which would have to be a cultural change first in
Speaker 1: order for it to be viable economically. I think we're
Speaker 1: going to continue to see a lot of reliance on
Speaker 1: the Chinese market. But again, this is another one of
Speaker 1: those things that I'd really like to be wrong about.
Speaker 1: I I love the idea of everyone's shopping local and
Speaker 1: supporting small businesses. As we've seen going through all this.
Speaker 1: You know, fifty of employees in the United States are
Speaker 1: employed by small businesses companies with fewer than fifty employees.
Speaker 1: I think it's safe to say you and I both
Speaker 1: work for companies that fall into that category. Maybe on
Speaker 1: the CUSP right, So I think that we would need
Speaker 1: to culturally appreciate why you pay extra when it comes
Speaker 1: from a factory inside the United States, and we would
Speaker 1: need to value that culturally as worthwhile in order for
Speaker 1: us to see the economic shift true world, let's talk
Speaker 1: about our business journalism. How do you think that? I mean,
Speaker 1: coronavirus is already affecting negatively the business Military Times, for
Speaker 1: for example, how to for a lot of its employees.
Speaker 1: What do you think the post coronavirus journalism more in
Speaker 1: the States were look like? I think you raise a
Speaker 1: really important point that a lot of people don't realize.
Speaker 1: And to talk a little insider baseball, I've had a
Speaker 1: few people ask me how can how can journalism right
Speaker 1: now be hurting when people are dying for information? You know?
Speaker 1: And and the reason is pretty pretty simple. It's that
Speaker 1: there are only really three effective revenue models for a
Speaker 1: news business. Right, you can have a paywall where you
Speaker 1: get money directly from the consumer. Uh. You can sell
Speaker 1: ad impressions, which is you sell people a number of
Speaker 1: times that their AD will appear on a page that
Speaker 1: someone scrolls across. Or you can sell clickthroughs, which is
Speaker 1: effectively how many times someone clicks on an AD that's
Speaker 1: on your content. Right, So those are the three primary
Speaker 1: revenue models, and I think you'll see that a lot
Speaker 1: of news outlets, both of ours leverage a little bit
Speaker 1: of one, a little bit of two, a little bit
Speaker 1: of three. They mix and match a little bit, but ultimately, revenue,
Speaker 1: if you aren't using a subscription model like a lot
Speaker 1: of outlets do, revenue is tied to add inventory. Right,
Speaker 1: So if your ad inventory is only for ten tho impressions,
Speaker 1: but you get twenty million views, you only really make
Speaker 1: money off of that ad inventory of ten thou impressions.
Speaker 1: There are ways to go through third party affiliates where
Speaker 1: you'll get maybe thirty cents on the dollar for those
Speaker 1: ad impressions that you can use to leverage if you've
Speaker 1: got less ad inventory than you do exposure. But that's
Speaker 1: the concern that I think we're all going to be
Speaker 1: looking at moving forward. Is the the idea that because
Speaker 1: consumer spending is down across the board, advertising spend is
Speaker 1: going to be down as well. Right, So, if these
Speaker 1: companies are hesitant to buy a ton of ad space
Speaker 1: because they know that they may not necessarily see the
Speaker 1: return on investment because consumers can't go to Best Buy,
Speaker 1: they're going to be more reluctant to shell out a
Speaker 1: ton of money to buy ad inventory. And then you
Speaker 1: run the risk of seeing outlets on military Times is
Speaker 1: a great example that's got a huge reader base that's
Speaker 1: very well established that still found themselves in economic dire
Speaker 1: straits as ad inventory started to sour. I love the
Speaker 1: Military Times. I'm very confident that they're gonna end up
Speaker 1: back on their feet, but they did have to furlow
Speaker 1: some employees to get through this. I think Software and
Speaker 1: Sandbox are both really fortunate that we haven't had to
Speaker 1: make those kinds of hard decisions. But I think our
Speaker 1: industry as a whole is going to shift in part
Speaker 1: on the individual level, because many writers are in the
Speaker 1: gig economy. Most writers are not staff writers, right. They
Speaker 1: don't have one consistent job. They write for multiple outlets. Uh,
Speaker 1: and they get paid by invoice right, Uh, exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: And we're seeing firsthand how those who participate in the
Speaker 1: gig economy, whether you make a hundred bucks for an
Speaker 1: article or you make a hundred bucks this week driving
Speaker 1: for Uber, how crippled. This can very quickly make these
Speaker 1: people who are not only paycheck to paycheck, their invoice
Speaker 1: to invoice, right. So money is not always consistent as
Speaker 1: a freelancer, and you don't always know when you're gonna
Speaker 1: get paid as a freelancer, and when that money dries up,
Speaker 1: you can't just immediately go into file for unemployment. If
Speaker 1: you didn't do your taxes in two thousand eighteen because
Speaker 1: you had sixteen different jobs, because one was Uber, one
Speaker 1: was door Dash, one was writing for Business Insider, and
Speaker 1: one was, uh, you know, writing for your own personal blog.
Speaker 1: And you only made twenty five dollars last year. You
Speaker 1: didn't really want to go hire an accountant for five
Speaker 1: dollars to make sense of that return. And now you're
Speaker 1: not going to get your stimulus check right a two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen tax return. As a writer, I consider myself
Speaker 1: incredibly fortunate that I've had steady, consistent good employment for years.
Speaker 1: Right A lot of guys are not in such fortunate positions,
Speaker 1: and I think that our industry is going to end
Speaker 1: up having to adjust because for every one guy there
Speaker 1: is like you or me, there's five guys and girls
Speaker 1: who are in a really bad place right now. And
Speaker 1: if we want to continue to have good journalism, if
Speaker 1: we genuinely want good coverage, we're going to have to
Speaker 1: pay for it as a people. And it's either going
Speaker 1: to be a new model where people end up having
Speaker 1: to be staffers more often, or it's going to be
Speaker 1: a model that we've seen increasingly where there are very
Speaker 1: few writers per outlet and most freelancers have to find
Speaker 1: other employment. I think that would be bad for us.
Speaker 1: I think it would be bad for us to to
Speaker 1: dry up the freelance pool and the gig economy because
Speaker 1: you need multiple professional analytical voices for the media to
Speaker 1: work for the American people. When you cansolidate voices, when
Speaker 1: you've only got maybe a hundred prominent columnists in the
Speaker 1: country instead of ten thousand, you're really doing the nation
Speaker 1: a disservice because perspective is everything. You know. The diversity
Speaker 1: that lancers brank is invaluable. Yeah, yeah, you know, because
Speaker 1: you and I can write every day, but eventually it
Speaker 1: ends up just being our thoughts if we don't have
Speaker 1: outside voices coming in. Right, We're both fortunate to have
Speaker 1: really competent and capable staff writers. But even if you've
Speaker 1: got twenty staff writers under you, eventually people are gonna say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'd really like to hear one more voice. I really
Speaker 1: like to know what a military spouse who lives in
Speaker 1: military housing in Italy feels about the coronavirus and the
Speaker 1: lockdown that's going on in Italy. I say that because
Speaker 1: we published a story recently that was a first person
Speaker 1: account of a military spouse living in quarantine in Italy.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been able to do that without freelancers.
Speaker 1: And uh, we run the risk of losing our freelancers
Speaker 1: to COVID nineteen and I really hope that's not the case.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there's gonna be a safe towards
Speaker 1: subscriber model? I mean, there's always there's already the subscriber model.
Speaker 1: But you think we're going to see that, I think
Speaker 1: it's totally possible. I think that this is the subscriber
Speaker 1: model is one of the most sustainable, just because instead
Speaker 1: of getting your money through a third party, you're getting
Speaker 1: your money directly from the consumer. Right that can tie
Speaker 1: your hands and content in some ways, that can free
Speaker 1: your hands and content and others, but ultimately your beholden
Speaker 1: to your stakeholders, which are the subscribers. Right. The backside
Speaker 1: of that coin, however, is that since the Internet's inception,
Speaker 1: we've gotten very accustomed to getting what we want for free.
Speaker 1: A paywall can be a barrier for a lot of
Speaker 1: readers that will make them just go screw it. I'll
Speaker 1: go to CNN because I can get it for free there,
Speaker 1: Or screw it, I'll go to Joe's blog because I'll
Speaker 1: get it for free from him. Now, I think that
Speaker 1: there are enough people out there that are willing to pay.
Speaker 1: It doesn't cost much to subscribe to these outlets, right,
Speaker 1: I think there are enough people out there that are
Speaker 1: willing to pay. But I think as a whole, I
Speaker 1: don't think the entire your market is willing to pay.
Speaker 1: So I think we're always going to see content that's
Speaker 1: free for people who aren't subscribed. I do think that
Speaker 1: we're going to see an uptick, the same way we
Speaker 1: have in YouTube, where people are going to Patreon right
Speaker 1: because it has become inconsistent. I think we will see
Speaker 1: an uptick and subscription services. But I do not think
Speaker 1: we're ever going to see a stop to free content online.
Speaker 1: As long as the ad business is feasible, as long
Speaker 1: as people get mad when they can't get through a paywall,
Speaker 1: you're always gonna see at least a percentage of content
Speaker 1: up for free. I think. So it's good marketing, you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's finish up with soundbooks? Are things over there. I
Speaker 1: know that you've been crossing it. Let's hear from you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Things are going really really well for anybody
Speaker 1: that I sound like a stranger too. I worked at
Speaker 1: soft Rep as a senior staff writer and a tech
Speaker 1: editor for for years and a couple other websites that
Speaker 1: fall under the soft Rep on Bellow umbrella like Fighters
Speaker 1: Sleep in the load out Room, and I left for
Speaker 1: Sandbox in January of this year to try to build
Speaker 1: something new in the same vein, but very different. You know,
Speaker 1: outlets like soft Rep Military Times, these outlets specialize in
Speaker 1: holding the defense Department accountable right, which is an essential
Speaker 1: service in our nation. However, at Sandbox, we're trying to
Speaker 1: establish almost a good news outlet. We we want the
Speaker 1: world to know that while it's essential, while it's so
Speaker 1: important that we hold leadership's feet to the fire, while
Speaker 1: we speak truth to leadership and whatever form it, maybe
Speaker 1: there's room on this channel for some good news, for
Speaker 1: some reason to to smile and be a little optimistic.
Speaker 1: And that's really what we focus on at Sandbox. Our
Speaker 1: primary demographics are service members, you know, where we're aiming
Speaker 1: for service members and their families because those are the
Speaker 1: people that we directly represent, you know. My staff writers
Speaker 1: are range from military spouses to c I a office,
Speaker 1: but the one thing that they all have in common
Speaker 1: is military service and a passion for those who serve,
Speaker 1: you know. So at Sandbox, our model very much is
Speaker 1: ought to focus on the nobility of service, right. So
Speaker 1: where you might go to someplace like soft rep to
Speaker 1: find out what we're doing wrong and what we should
Speaker 1: be doing or what we can be doing to fix it,
Speaker 1: you can always come by Sandbox News to find out
Speaker 1: what we're doing right, you know. And I want to
Speaker 1: be a page that a lance corporal can go to
Speaker 1: to find out how to get promoted. I want to
Speaker 1: be a page that a lance corporal can send a
Speaker 1: girl he likes to to find out why he matters
Speaker 1: and what he's doing is so important. And we've had
Speaker 1: a lot of success with it, you know. The the
Speaker 1: site started out as a corporate blog run by Nicole Lutz,
Speaker 1: who's our my content manager now and she is awesome
Speaker 1: and really put me in a great position to succeed
Speaker 1: taking over the site so that she could focus on
Speaker 1: some other things. And so we've had growth from Q
Speaker 1: four to Q one this year. So in real numbers.
Speaker 1: That means we went from around three million views to
Speaker 1: around five million views, and which is a huge amount
Speaker 1: of growth and I can't take credit for it. The
Speaker 1: credit goes to the people who are writing the content,
Speaker 1: and the credit goes to you guys who are listening
Speaker 1: right now. And we're like, hey, I've never heard of
Speaker 1: the sandbox news thing before. I'll scope it out. So
Speaker 1: I'm I'm over the moon grateful. We're still small potatoes
Speaker 1: compared to a big outlets like you, for instance, but
Speaker 1: U but we're growing really fast. And I think we're
Speaker 1: growing fast because the world out there knows that there's
Speaker 1: room for some good news too, you know, nice military years. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we are. We we we do important, hard
Speaker 1: hitting content still, but we try to keep the focus
Speaker 1: on the service member as opposed to the policy. Right. So, well,
Speaker 1: you may have criticisms of the policy or the policy makers,
Speaker 1: I think we can all agree that the service members
Speaker 1: are are worth our our devotion and our admiration, you know.
Speaker 1: So by not focusing on the politics, you know, we
Speaker 1: keep politics completely out of sandbox. We're in a political organization,
Speaker 1: and by not focusing on the controversy that comes with
Speaker 1: the politics. It really opens us up to you know.
Speaker 1: I I interviewed Johnny Kim, that Navy seal astronaut doctor.
Speaker 1: Earlier this week. I interviewed Max Martini movie star that
Speaker 1: was in like thirteen hours and stuff like that. And
Speaker 1: the reason why we're able to do these interviews and
Speaker 1: get them out to such a large audience is because
Speaker 1: we work hard to make sure that we're inclusive of everybody.
Speaker 1: There's room at Sandbox News regardless of your political affiliation,
Speaker 1: regardless of how you feel about the war in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: or how you feel about the invasion of Iraq, regardless
Speaker 1: of where your biases lie. We're home for you because
Speaker 1: we don't have any And uh, it's it's been fun
Speaker 1: for me to get to do because I've spent years
Speaker 1: kind of focusing on the parts of the world that
Speaker 1: we're on fire. And I prize that I got some
Speaker 1: of my best accomplishments. I would argue r and being
Speaker 1: critical of the system, but I'm really having a lot
Speaker 1: of fun and getting to focus on the bright side
Speaker 1: for a while, you know. Nice, Nice, well, Alex, thanks
Speaker 1: again for joining us. Thank you for having me man,
Speaker 1: And if you don't mind me doing a quick plug.
Speaker 1: Please check out Sandbox with two xes sandbox news dot com.
Speaker 1: That's where you can go straight to our news content,
Speaker 1: or you can go to Sandbox with two xes and
Speaker 1: just click on the news tab. We've got great content from,
Speaker 1: like I said, everybody, from military spouses to Navy seals.
Speaker 1: We try our best to keep you updated and informed,
Speaker 1: but without any sensationalism, without any bias, without any politics.
Speaker 1: Go to software so that you can learn about what's
Speaker 1: going bad and how we can fix it. Go to
Speaker 1: sandbox you can learn about what's going well and how
Speaker 1: we can keep doing it. Just run for offs. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've begun very Quint's told you man, I've been I've
Speaker 1: been doing the hustle for three months now. Thanks thanks again, Alex,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. Guys. Listening to self Rep Radio. New
Speaker 1: episodes up every Wednesday and Friday. Follow the show on
Speaker 1: Instagram and Twitter at self rep Radio