74% of Gen Z uses TikTok as a search engine. 81% of teens get news from creators. But 55% still say they trust established experts when a story really matters. So the question isn't whether Gen Z has abandoned traditional sources. It's whether "the source" is even a concept anymore. In this episode of Market Says, hosts Gayle Troberman and Marcus Collins sit down with University of Michigan marketing students to figure out who they actually trust, when credentials still matter, and what all this means for brands and truth.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We are here with the next episode of my favorite show.
Market says, it's the one where I get smarter every
single episode. So that is the genius of having doctor
Marcus Collins with us. But more importantly, we have three
incredible students from the Raw School of Business at University
(00:37):
of Michigan, and they're going to teach us all a
thing or two about gen Z, what we thought we
know and what we really know?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
What is the truth?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
We're going to dig in and figure it out. And
today's a really interesting topic. Marcus.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's all about like sources.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
I mean, I think about growing up and you remember
like the teachers screaming at you about plagiarism and how
to source, like where you got your information in every
paper like that was like half your grade, it felt like,
was how good you were at sourcing? And yet today
what's the source? Do we even know? So, Julia Maya Aria,
(01:19):
we're here to talk about sources. Where do you get
your information? Where is gen Z picking up the wisdom?
And do you even know what the sources?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
And do you care.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
A couple of stats to get us into it or Marcus,
do you want to drop some stats?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
I mean this setup was just quite perfect. I mean,
all I could think about is growing up. The crown
jewel of our house from my mother in particular, who
is an academic, was the Encyclopedia Britannicus we had in
the house. She like, look at our house, Look what
we had, Look at the brilliance in our house? Right?
Oh yeah. The idea of Wikipedia just blew her brain.
She's like, what, Like, we're just taking the word of
(01:58):
people and use that as citations. That makes no sense
at all, But it's true like growing up for me.
If Dan Rather didn't say it, or Walter Kronkit didn't say,
it's like, it ain't real, I don't believe it. But
the question became like to your point here is like
what is real? You know there was a time when
social networking platforms where we got more information than the news.
It really begs a question what is real? Where do
(02:20):
we cite or source reality? And so this group, the
market represented today will help us better understand that. So
considering it Bubbler, we're all about conversations. What we like
to start this conversation today is how do conversations start?
So I'll start with Maya, who is the goat? On
(02:41):
the podcast. At this point, she's like, did SNL been
here five times? Like she's a five timer? So Maya
will start with you here something you heard, you read,
you saw that you feel compelled to tell someone about,
and how did you source it? How did you cite it?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Yeah, well again thanks for having me back. But the
most recent thing that I read was actually on substack
and it was a piece about kind of the neuroscience
behind whimsy. It was an interesting title and I started
reading it and there was a stat on how there's
this concept of a default mode network where someone isn't
entirely present in the moment mentally, they're not entirely focused,
(03:21):
and there was a stat saying that about like forty
seven percent, about half of adults are in that space
during their time when they're awake during the day. So
as someone that is part of that stat, I was like,
no way, I'm focused, I'm dialed in. And I started
looking into what their sources were on that actual piece
and it seemed legit like it was science dot com,
(03:44):
which sounds like the epitome of proof, and they had
actual doctors and professionals behind it. So that was my
first question of some information that I was given. But
when I look at news sources like Substack, those are
always opinion pieces. So when I look at those, I
almost always want to look back at the sources, especially
when it's almost attacking me.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Well, this actually begs a really interesting question, which almost
speaks to your framing, Gail, that I wonder, maya, what
had it gotten your attention if it was a stat
that seemed to be confirming your bias, if that research
you heard was confirmation to your experience as a gen Z,
would you have even stopped to sort of site check
(04:28):
the citation? You could be honest, you could be honest.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
I'm not entirely sure, Like, at least with this specific topic,
it's not as polarizing per se, So I definitely wouldn't
have questioned it because it doesn't seem too outlandish. So,
I mean, confirmation bias is huge, especially with the space
we're in and the environment and the conversations we're having,
So it's easy to kind of surround yourself with this
(04:52):
bubble of information that you believe, and when you're in
those conversations that are less polarized, it's even easier to
kind of just say, yeah, I knew that.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Yeah, So, Julie, I'm curious that you're taken on this
one here because, like, MAYI make a good point about
substack that they are all opinions right there, are written
by someone who necessarily a journalist, are not necessarily bound
by sort of the standards of scientific writing. But honestly,
many publications they outsource their journalism or their writing to
(05:27):
contributors who are also unlicensed or don't have the credentials
that we expect from like a Waltzer Kronkite. And I'm
going to keep on the watchers. He's the guy. So
I mean, so the idea there is that, like, can
we even cite some of the publishers, the big publishers,
when those people are in many ways kind of like
(05:48):
substat writers. No shade, Julia talk to us and I
love you kind of weigh in on this idea of
like where does the credential lide? Does it lie at
the platform level? I E? Stack, So therefore it's opinion?
Or do we look at the good housekeeping seal of
Bill in the blank, your favorite online publisher and you
go that's enough for me.
Speaker 6 (06:09):
No, Yeah, that's a really really great point, And I
feel like similarly. Actually, I was going to mention this
literally yesterday. I think I just got into reading substack
articles and that was what I was gonna mention before
mine got to it before me. But I think to
your point about, you know, what qualifies as someone like
a credential or what does it take for you to
(06:29):
believe in somebody or for someone to be legitimate. I
think something I've realized after consuming media, especially in like
the last two years, people's opinions on like substack or
even like podcast hosts, I still value and believe their
opinions even if they don't necessarily have the license or
you know, some sort of scientific background. Because if it's
(06:50):
about subjects about you know, relationship advice or thinking about
how do better yourself and growth in motivation and those
types of things and those topics, who do we classify
as like qualified to speak on those things? Because I
think it's for me. I take advice from people that
I admire who they are as a person, and I
admire the traits that they embody. And so what makes
(07:13):
you know my friend who went to the university machine
with me, they're super super smart and qualified. They don't
you know, major in psychology. They don't have anything to like,
you know, show for their expertise, I guess, which is
not like real expertise. But if they're giving me advice
that I think is coming from their real experience and
it's worked for them, I would take it as much
(07:34):
as I would take someone else like Ox Cooper on
callor Daddy. She doesn't have like a real background to
be necessarily interviewing like celebrities and really qualified people, but
her questions are the same ones that I would want
to ask these people to like. I don't think it
takes necessarily some you know, degree to be able to
(07:54):
be qualified on certain topics that you're talking about. So
Subtec writers outsourcing applications or articles to contributors, I think
it's a lot more.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I believe it, and I.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
Don't really question it as much as I think, you know,
other people might. And I would pretty much believe that
if it just had the name on it, or if
it was from a contributor, it wouldn't really bother me
too much.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So this is a good shout, and this is an
interesting shout, And I want your take on this one, Gail,
because I have an example. I want to highlight here.
It's an interesting shout because what I'm hearing you say, Julie,
which I think is actually quite fair, that you're like, listen,
I trust this person because we see the world similarly,
or at the very least, I am intrigued by their
point of view and how they see the world. And therefore,
(08:37):
when they have a point of view that may not
be validated by some housekeeping seal that we call a
degree or some license, you go, I kind of vibe
with that, right, And that's actually enough to me. And
the example I want to bring up, and I'd love
for you to wear into this one, Gail, hopefully you're
you're aware of it. Have you heard of doctor Cheyenne Bryant.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I's super familiar.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So she presented herself as a therapist, Okay, a clinical
therapist is how she presented herself. And she talks a
lot about relationships and women's empowerment blah blah blah, and
like she had the Internet in a choke holde like
women were like tell her, doctor Cheyenne. They were all
in until there became a conversation about whether or not
she really had a doctorate. Oh and when she was
(09:20):
called out on it. She was extremely defensive and it
looked very very guilty, but only because she lied, right, yes, yeah, yeah, yeah,
So I guess, Julie, that's the question I have for you. So, like,
say Alex Cooper presented herself as doctor Cooper at first,
and she dropping all her relationship advice, you like tell her,
oh yeah, absolutely, one hundred percent, uh huh, go ahead, girl,
(09:41):
And then you find out that she's actually not a doctor,
not even licensed therapist, that she actually didn't finish her
doctoral degree. Do you go, oh, man, I feel duped
or do you go that don't really matter because.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
The vibes, it really depends.
Speaker 6 (09:58):
Like if it's like relationship, that's something where it's like
everyone experiences that, and it's not like a deep like
a medical like it's very specific you need a lot
of knowledge about. I don't know, Like it's like a
cardiovascular disease is like that. I would need you to
be a doctor, and I wouldn't believe anything you're saying
if you didn't go to medical school. But if it's
(10:19):
something about like relationship advice or like women's empowerment, you know,
I think every woman and every person that's been a
relationship has valuable insight and experiences and lived experiences that
can you know, be beneficial to learn from or you know,
are just as valuable, I think, because at the end
of the day, we're all human and ask scoopers have
experience similar things that happen in her relationship that you
(10:40):
know I do or other people do. So depending on
the type of expertise, my value in their licensing will vary.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
H which the act.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Suber example is a really great one because I think, Yeah,
if she was trying to be like an actual talk
about something like super specific and required that type of credential,
I wouldn't buy it at all, But she does, and
so it's okay.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yeah. And I suppose though, if Alex said that she
was credential as a doctor and then you find out
she weren't, would that I suppose Julie with that erode
the trust you had in her, because it's no longer
as authentic even though her experiences were.
Speaker 6 (11:16):
I think so because I feel like that to me
is just like straight up dishonesty, and to me it
kind of goes back to Funnily enough, like the other
episode we talked about when I was here on the show.
It's kind of like a money grab. It's her licensing.
Then her pretending to be a doctor was trying to,
you know, make her seem more qualified than she really is,
just so that way she could get more viewers or
(11:37):
get more listeners and that kind of thing. Yeah, And
to be honest with you, when I first heard about
her podcast, because my older sister listens to her a bunch,
I was like, why would I want to listen to her,
Like I don't even know she going to ask good questions,
Like why would I trust her? And then I gave
her podcast a shot, and I'm like, damn, if I
was interviewing this person, I would want to know the
exact same things. Yeah, And I think it really changed
my perception of like you have this image of like
(11:59):
who you think is who isn't, And it really made
me realize my biases. And I'm like, it wouldn't matter
if she was a doctor or not, Like I would
want to know the same things. And she's asking the
ones even if you don't need a license to be
able to ask these great questions. So that was just
the true sents I threw out there, Like I was
such a doubter in the beginning, because I did value
these credential things, and then it kind of changed my
perception once I started consuming media by people that weren't
(12:21):
like that, and it's like, these are topics that you
don't necessarily need to be licensed to talk about.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I mean, it's essentially congruents over credentials that the real
credence comes from people like me. All right, Aria, you
are the neophyight to market says so I'm really curious,
what do you listened to read her that you found
yourself sort of repeating as if it were God's ful.
Speaker 7 (12:47):
I'm going to go ahead and move into pop culture
a little bit. I think it's the year of great
movies coming out. So we have the Odissey, we've got
Spider Man, Dune. The common denominator here, of course, being Sendaia,
and she is just a fashion icon. I feel like
everybody's constantly talking about her looks on premieres and red carpets.
(13:08):
Something that I've been sharing a lot recently was when
her stylist Lroach basically went from Paris that morning, took
something fresh off the runway on a Scaprelly show and
flew it to her the same day to London, and
then they made it this whole side part of the
launch where he was showing bts on his Instagram. People
(13:31):
were talking about it, asking Zindai about it. I was like,
oh my gosh, like this is awesome and such a
good way to promote the odyssey, and I was telling
all of my friends about it.
Speaker 8 (13:40):
I just thought it was really like.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
A fun moment in pop culture to be able to
share with people.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
So I love that.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
I mean, like, Lrooch is an interesting one because yeah,
I mean exactly we know his Christma fashion perspective. The
interesting part here is that like there were all these
rumors about Zendia of being married. You saw like you
know AI photos and blah blah blah blah. But Larote's
my understanding is that he's the one who actually dropped Dine.
(14:10):
Did you hear that too?
Speaker 8 (14:11):
Yeah? I think so.
Speaker 7 (14:12):
I saw that press interview where he basically was like, honey,
they're already married and then walked off.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Lisa. There it goes again about like credentialed so worse, Yeah,
like who is the licensed source? And I think that
like what really gets down to is like trust And
I suppose if I'm pulling credentialed information here. You know,
the Adaman Trust Institute would talk a lot about how
our trust and institutions are eroding, and I suppose I
(14:41):
asked this question the three of you all opened popcorn style, like,
is that why we were going to these outside sources
because the normal institutions no longer either feel relevant or
trustworthy based on our conversation? Is that what's happening here?
Speaker 7 (14:58):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of in ingredients thrown
into the mix in the sense of gen Z maybe
not going to these credible sources as much. The first
being that there have been moments or controversies in the
past couple of months where people feel like what's being
reported with these news publications isn't necessarily completely accurate, and
(15:20):
so immediately you're losing that trust. I think the other
thing is that we're spending so much time on social
media now that a lot of times the information we're
seeing on our socials is just coming across our desk first,
and I think where a generation that gets a lot
of media, we consume it really quickly and really easily,
so sometimes it is easier to just scroll and see
(15:42):
what comes across your for you page as opposed to
searching for the information on the New York Times or
waiting a couple more days for something to get published
on there. And then I would also say that trust
is growing in social media as a whole in their platforms,
not necessarily because of specific creators we really like or
go out and seek, but because we have a lot
(16:04):
of trust in our algorithms. And I'm really seeing this
when I'm scrolling on TikTok versus Instagram reels. I'm so
much more likely to stick on TikTok and actually follow
somebody or stick through the entire video because it feels
like my for you page really knows me and aligns
with me and my beliefs and what I'm wanting to consume,
whereas Instagram reels, I'm not really on it as much.
(16:25):
I'm not really enjoying the content as much, so I'm
probably not going out of my way to like those
posts or go to creator's page. And I think that
trust in the algorithm is then transitive to the people
that we begin following and seeing on our platforms.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Gail, will you share that, what do you think?
Speaker 2 (16:42):
What do you feel so terrifying and yet fascinating, which
is usually my reaction on this show. The trust in
the algorithm, right, Like everything in my gut goes, Wait,
the algorithm is there to.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Manipulate you to spend more time.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And the more time that you spend, the more money
the platforms can make, and the more ads we can serve. Ultimately,
the more marketing and commerce that can happen.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
That fuels the whole engine.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So part of me as a marketer goes, yeah, right,
whin more time, more money, more attention.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Which is scarce.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
The other part of me goes the thing I always
love about like gen Z and you guys help keep
me honest on this, which is like, you're aware of
the algorithm that's there theoretically to manipulate you, But is
it manipulating you?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
If you're aware and you're in on it, right, you're.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Making this conscious choice and you're noticing, like the algorithm
on one social versus another, is one's better and it's
learned you more for whatever reasons. Maybe it's better, maybe
you've spent more time, right, who knows, but I think
it's super interesting. You're the first generation that's like fully
in on the game. It's like you get marketing. You know,
(17:59):
you know what you're tensions worth, You're choosing where you
put it.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I think that it's a little more transparent and.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Overt than maybe prior generations where we were victims maya.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
I want you to take on this for sure, because
what I hear you saying, Gail, it feels almost like
this is a crafts example. It's all that thuring came
my mind. So bear with me here. Like it's almost
like gen Z is going to the strip club knowing
that the dancers don't love them. It's like, look, I know,
I'm not funny loving the club Like I'm here just
spend my money entertainment, where maybe back in the day
(18:34):
we was like I found the love of my life
with the club. Is like, oh, Fred, that's not love.
I wonder, like, am I off gar It's a crass example,
I know, but like La, it doesn't the vibes.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
Right, yeah, I mean, I guess And everything that you
were saying, Gail, what I was thinking about was this
recent conversation I had with my friend about how our
phones are listening to us, and her take was I
don't mind, yeah, which I thought was crazy. I'm a
little worried. She was like, you know what, it's my algorithm.
It's telling me what I want to hear. It's listening
to me. Sure, but hey, if it helps me get
(19:08):
like a discount that I didn't know existed, then I'm down. Yeah,
that's kind of feeding into the idea that we're very
well aware of how we're being marketed to. And a
lot of the people that I've spoken to are fine
being targeted as consumers because it's feeding into what they
would need as consumers.
Speaker 8 (19:25):
Right, they're enjoying it.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
But I think when we also look at all these areas,
if you look at gen Z, we're in this unique
space where we also grew up having our teachers tell
us like not to Wikipedia and being very well aware
about our sources. And then for me it was around
high school where there was this boom of just AI
and so information was already super accessible, but then it
(19:50):
became right there for you. It became tailored. Information wasn't
just accessible, it was for your thoughts. So with what
our generation consumes, the way I am and the way
I see a lot of my peers, we're automatically cynics
to information. We've seen a lot of misinformation. We're aware
of it. We're aware that Wikipedia isn't the best, But
(20:11):
is that the source that Gemini is telling me? This
is information from maybe and that's not something everyone's checking.
That then comes into a conversation that I would love
to learn more about what you guys think about in
terms of what our own social responsibility is, if not
even social responsibility, but personal responsibility to kind of challenge
(20:31):
those beliefs that we're so comfortable in.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Let's keep pulling on nex I love that. I love that. Yeah, Like,
if you know it's a ruse, are you propagating it
by engaging in it as opposed to being like, no,
I'm good, Julie, what's your take?
Speaker 6 (20:47):
First off, just wow, Maya, you really got my head
ticking without what I was like, damn, you were spitting
bars because I completely agree with so many of the
things that you brought up. And I think, you know, Marcus,
to your point about like what is our social responsibility?
I think you know the purpose of these news outlets
and a lot of you know, these companies, if they're
trying to spread misinformation is because they want you to
(21:07):
believe them, right, So, whether or not you believe in
the beliefs that they're promoting. I think if you choose
to believe them, then you are not doing your social
responsibility and you're instead feeding into their misinformation or basically
satisfying what they want. But if you inside actually don't
believe it or reject it, or you choose to stay
(21:27):
true to like what you believe in or believe what
you know to be is credible in real information, then
you are fundamentally doing what they are, you know, rejecting
what they're trying to do, and you're sticking up for
the greater social good of you know, believing what's real.
And I think for me personally in my experience is
that I've just been so disillusioned by major news outlets.
(21:48):
I've seen them get things wrong. I've seen them release
updates that are like, oh, like just kidding, we did
that wrong, like that it's actually this number and stuff.
And something else too I realized is that after interning
or working in the workforce, these companies are made up
of people just like even me, Like we're going to
be working at big corporate companies and I am going
(22:09):
to be part of these campaigns that are going to
be marketing or communicating to the mass audiences.
Speaker 8 (22:14):
Like if I was.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
Under the name of a big publisher or just myself,
the work is still mine, right, So I'm like, I
know I make mistakes sometimes, I know I'm not always right.
So I bet you the people that work for these
companies are also just human, Like we're all at the
end of the day, like on this way more similar
playing field than I think. And I feel like I
know that now because I've seen that happen at the
(22:37):
different companies I've worked for, So it really kind of
just changes my perspective in that way.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
I mean, I wonder if that goes back to your
early idea that they don't have to be credentialized for
you to buy in. Yeah, they like, like, I know,
these folks make mistakes and right, so maybe even the
ones that you know, you seek news outlets, they'll show
a photo of Laurence Fishburne and say it's Samuel Jackson.
You're like, uh, fam, that is not so happening more and.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
More, right, yes, with AI.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Now right with you know, media companies and marketing organizations
and everyone moving to efficiency through AI, we're seeing more
of that, Like that's not him, this is not Laurence Fishburn,
I know who that is, right, Like it's crazy the
level of like acceptance I think we now have.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Like I remember the day is like pre computer because I'm.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Old, seasoned, seasoned, that old.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Experienced, right, Like I was working in a PR agency.
There were forty eight pages of press releases on a
new iron, not the golf kind, like the laundry iron,
you know one. No one should ever write forty eight pages,
certainly before computers, like insanity. And there was one typo
at the end of like page seven press release five
(23:51):
on this new Nurelko iron, and I almost got fired,
fired like it was like one of my first jobs,
and it was like whoa, never again? And then flash forward.
I got a job at Microsoft and I asked the
CMO my first day there. I was like, what mistake
am I gonna make? Mitch, And she was like, Oh,
you're gonna proof reread your emails. Don't waste time. People
(24:14):
are smart. I was like, oh my god.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
For me, that was when the world changed and I
stopped proofreading, right, But that was just typos.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Now you're talking facts. Do you feel like there's a
point where we just stop fact checking.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
And believe what we want to believe, or are we
already there.
Speaker 9 (24:32):
I feel like we're all gonna internally believe kind of
what we want to hear to some extent, Like I
think when it comes to hard numbers and facts and
the topic that we're talking about, if it's something that
is way.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Bigger than you know, relationship advice or something like that,
the validity of the stats does matter. And I think
it more so matters that we all talk about the
same ones and that we can at least agree on
the hard evidence. And then your interpretation of it. That's
where it's a little bit out of our control. We're
going to interpret it a little bit differently based off
of what we want how we want to see it.
(25:06):
But let's make sure that what we're all seeing is
what we're agreeing upon. But I wouldn't say it's like
all hope is lost. I think there are still ways
that and their practices to try our best to make
it as honest as possible.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
I mean, I can't help but conjure Marshall McLuhan, you
know it is the media works us over completely, like
it leaves no part of us untouched, unfiltered, unaltered.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Right, it's not the method, just the battering ram, that's right.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
So what I way to do is like just switch
over to you little Aria a bit here, because you
brought up the idea of like movies and this is like,
you're right, it's an amazing summer from movies like Obsession,
back Rooms. Horror is having its moment at the moment.
But my question though here is about like sighting sources
(26:05):
when you see a trailer and then you juxtapose that
to what you see or Rotten Tomatoes the critics score
in the audience store, Like how swayed are you by this?
Because I've seen people that heard about a movie and go,
oh I heard it sucks, and you go, where'd you
hear that? And had a bad Rotten Tomato score? Is
that like the end all be all here? Does it matter?
(26:29):
All right? Talk to us?
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I mean, I think this falls totally back into this
idea of confirmation bias, where if I'm seeing a low
row Tomatoes score, but my friends are like, this is
my comfort movie.
Speaker 8 (26:40):
I've seen this five times. You have to watch it.
Speaker 7 (26:43):
This is amazing, Like, go see it. I probably will
watch it if it's like twenty eight percent ro On Tomatoes.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
I don't care.
Speaker 7 (26:49):
I'll watch it because my friend told me to watch it.
On the other side of that, though, if I'm seeing
this movie that's like ninety five percent Rotten Tomatoes and
my friends are like, we saw nos horrible, don't watch it,
I'd be like, WHOA. I mean, Ronen Tomatoes is saying
it's good, So I kind of want to give it
a chance and give it a go. But I mean,
(27:10):
I think even now Rotten Tomatoes isn't having the same
pull it had on me even five ten years ago.
Letterboxed is the next big thing, right, So being able
to see socially what your friends are following and how
they're rating it, that falls into like social proof and
you know, being with these people that are like you,
really trusting their opinions on a platform, and then everything
(27:34):
that you're seeing on socials. I think part of the
reason why obsession was so big was because people loved
pulling clips and audio and reenacting those scenes on TikTok,
which then continued to snowball into something greater where it
was like, well everybody online is talking about it.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
I don't want fomo, so I don't.
Speaker 7 (27:54):
Care how many like ratings this has on Rotten tomatoes?
What percent has on rotten tomatoes. I'm gonna go watch it.
Speaker 8 (27:59):
So I can be in the know.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
There is the contradictions that Rod Tomatos doesn't matter if
my friends say is cool, but if a France say
is good, I'm like Rod Tomato said this, So for me,
I'm like, how do you all navigate the life that
you live? Like if these things are sort of creating
these opposites and these contradictions in these competing ideas, how
do you decide what's worth your attention, your money, your effort.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
The contradiction thing I think is super fascinating because I
think Maya, when you were talking about like responsibility, right,
I was having this whole thing of like it's not
like social responsibility to the masses, but it's almost like
you have a responsibility to yourself to open up your
aperture enough. On the one side of the coin, like
you need the responsibility to something bigger than the algorithm
(28:50):
or your life and your interests are going to get
so small. But then this example is everyone's talking about obsession.
You gotta go see it all of a sudden. Now
there's like mass opinion coming into your micro hyper focused feeds.
Is that just the natural balance of things, Like do
(29:11):
you think one's more or less influential.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
For you guys?
Speaker 6 (29:15):
To me, it wouldn't matter if Rotten Tomato says it's amazing,
because literally, like all my roommates they're talking about how
much they love New Girl. I can't stand so additional.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I'm sorry, like there's no hay to gets here.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
I haven't seen a time by her, but I will
literally never watch New Girl.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Like can Schmid's the funniest. It's such a good show.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, Like that's the thing. I don't know why.
Speaker 6 (29:35):
It's because I was just I watched five hundred Days
the summer and I like really wanted to love it,
but I didn't love her character and that so like
literally I cannot tell you why. I just have, like,
you know, a version. And I just think like when
it's something pop culture based, like movies or music and
stuff like that, I feel like it's so important to
also just form your own opinion because I think it's
so easy to take the opinions of others and kind
(29:58):
of like regurgitate them as your own, because I do
all the time, especially if it's something that I'm like,
I'm going to be like self conscious about I don't
know a ton about this, but this critic said it
was like super cool and like I should love it,
and then I'll be like, oh, to be a part
of the conversation. I'm going to adopt the opinions that
I feel like credible people or my friends that I
admire a lot are saying. I think I've seen that
(30:20):
in myself become more individualized, where it's like there's always
going to be opinions, there's always going to be voices
swaying you. At some point. It's just whether or not
you think you yourself. It's just worth it to you
and what you really value.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
I mean, the idea of co opting other people's opinions
your own. That's the entire industry of academia. It's good. Yeah,
someone says something you're like, that's really smart. I'm just
gonna keep saying that over and over. By the way,
five hundred days this summer, I can watch this movie
over and really over and over and over. If it's
ever on television, I'm watching it. It gets me in
(30:54):
my heart every single time. Okay, so we're at that
part of the show We're gonna do care don't care stution. Addition,
where name an institution when that institution reports information, do
you care or don't care with regards to shaping your
worldview and how you use that information to circulate information
(31:15):
into your people. So podcasts care don't care?
Speaker 6 (31:19):
Juliet, I feel like it's such a convenient way to
consume media. And to me, it's not just like, oh,
I'm turning on like the news broadcast or the radio
and listening to someone that I like, don't really really
want to listen.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
To that much.
Speaker 6 (31:31):
It's like I can choose from a million different podcast
creators about topics that I'm interested in, and if it's
about something that you know, again, I want there to
be like as a credential person, I can look up
their credentials and it's just like I kind of just
get in the flow and I like like the topics
they talk about, and it's like something I can tune
into all the time. Yeah, and it really gets you
sucked in and I love that. And I think there's
(31:52):
just so many topics that podcasts cover and it's something
that really shapes a lot of what I think about.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Mayakara don't care.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
Definitely care.
Speaker 5 (32:01):
I think we're also what podcasts are uniquely good at
is being about conversation, and so regardless of what perspective
you're listening to, it gets you thinking, and even if
you don't agree with it, you're now thinking about this topic.
And it's so convenient because whoever made that podcast did
the research for you.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
They gave you the stats, but then.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
They're talking about their opinion, and that can get you
thinking about what you might think, what you might not think.
So not only does it give you information, but it
brings you into the conversation.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
It's just meta what you did there, because that's exact
what we're doing here, exactly here where the conversations happen.
One hundred percent Ari you care, don't care podcasts.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
I love what Maya said. I also do really care.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
I think podcasts do a great job at getting into
niche topics when.
Speaker 8 (32:45):
It comes to educational situations, and.
Speaker 7 (32:48):
I love finding experts in their podcasts who can really
like dive deep on different episodes and do different spins,
and so throughout a couple hours of listening to them,
I do almost feel connected to them in a sense,
And I honestly.
Speaker 8 (33:05):
Think podcasters now are replacing the traditional influencer in a way.
Speaker 7 (33:13):
I always trust what podcasters have to say, and honestly,
with the brand endorsements and the advertisements, I'm a lot
more willing to listen to that than sit through a
ninety second video on TikTok.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Yeah all right, so podcast it's a thing. The market
says it's a thing. What about like your traditional news sources.
I'm talking New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post.
Even television is NBC, Yes, sixty minutes, it's exactly yeah, yeah,
Today's show as an institution, care, don't care? Maya like comma?
(33:46):
Does it hold the same weight as podcasts that you
care about?
Speaker 5 (33:50):
I care? I do, and I really exceptionally care when
they have social media because like I'm following the Wall
Street Journal and they have what like a minute long
click explaining something that I see is factual, and I
love doing that. But what they do have to say,
at least when it comes to news platforms that are
a bit more bipartisan, that aren't as politically or like
(34:13):
skewed in one direction or another, I do value those opinions,
and maybe that's just something that's been kind of given
to me as a responsibility because as a freshman at
the University of Michigan, that was one of the first
things we were taught, Like, we were shown this big
graph of all these different news sources of where they
stand politically, how factual they are, how opinion neated they are,
(34:34):
And the Wall Street Journal was kind of like a
happy middle for a lot of those things. So it
does matter, And maybe it's less about fostering conversation more
about just knowing what's happening in the world.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
Yeah, we need more media literacy. It's a must, absolutely,
all right, care don't care traditional news sources.
Speaker 8 (34:53):
Okay, I might go against maya little bit.
Speaker 7 (34:56):
I would say I care for foundational store in context.
In terms of the first piece of media I'm jumping
to probably not going to be The New York Times
or the Wall Street Journal. I honestly think it's just
because we're consuming so much media these days, that's a
lot easier to process than pulling up an entire article,
(35:19):
getting a subscription, sitting.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
Down and really hunkering down.
Speaker 7 (35:23):
If there's an article that piques my interest, I will
totally hunker down and spend like forty minutes just scrolling
and reading that. But when it comes to, you know,
swaying public opinion or really taking a stance on a story,
I would much rather have those conversations online, following creators
that I really trust, or talking with my friends as
(35:45):
opposed to gathering those opinions from a large print publication.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Julia care, don't care.
Speaker 6 (35:53):
This is such a cop out answer, But I'm in
the middle, like, I kind of care. I think because
certain news outlets are so so so heavily politically biased
and the framing leans so so so one way or
the other. When it comes to the framing of things,
I don't really trust it that much. It comes some disillusion,
so disappointed, and you know how information has been presented
(36:14):
just so that way you can confirm with people's beliefs
or you know, insight of political belief. But I will
still say, like I consume the New York Times, like
their podcast version of news and then their Instagram. I
fall all the time I get there, like morning newsletter
thing that is my primary source for the first side
of news that makes sense. If I heard about like
(36:36):
this big thing just happened, it was like, oh, breaking news,
like x y Z just happened. I will trust if
the New York Times reported it, if Wall Street Journal
report it, or you know, if it was just the headline,
I will believe that it happened. But if I want
to look deeper into the nuances of it, I'm far
more picky about my sources. And that's when my how
(36:56):
much I care about these institutions kind of goes away
a little bit because I read The Morning Brew, which
is like another very business.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Seed Michigan and lum by the way, Michigan lum a.
Speaker 6 (37:04):
Yeah, yeah, that was so cool to me. So that's
like my much more my reliable go to source. Whereas
these big name brand institutions, they are trustworthy to me
to voute next extent.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
So it's not that I.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
Don't completely care, but I care enough to keep them around.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Wow, really really well said thank you. Yeah. So last
one here is care, don't care with regards to creators.
But I really want to do is actually rank these
like gun to head. You had to choose a citation
a source for information. Are you going to a creator?
Are you going to the news publication or podcasts? What
(37:42):
about brands?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Can we add brands?
Speaker 1 (37:43):
That's actually a good shout. That's a good shout gale
because they are in many ways a publisher in and
of themselves. They are producing information, points of view about
things beyond just the value proposition. So gun ahead, creator, podcast, publisher, brand, go.
Speaker 5 (37:59):
I'd say publishers first, that's like the source of truth,
right yeah. Secondly I'd say podcasts, then creators, and then
brands and love brands and everything. But in my mindset,
it's because those last two creators and brands get something
out of me consuming their information or they're selling me something.
(38:21):
In my mind, a news publication, a conversation on a
podcast that's to give information that is to educate me,
and I can choose to disagree with it.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
But maybe I'm.
Speaker 5 (38:31):
Naive in that way, but I don't see an ulterior
motive to sharing information from those. Then a brand that
might be selling a product or a person that has
a background deal with them.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Unless the publisher is driven by if it bleeds, it
leads they can get more views to sale board. That's true,
which I think is again it's the system that we're in,
right yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
I think we're increasingly all ad supported, right you know.
And I think it's the same thing the creators face, right,
podcasters face like is it okay to do a host
read for this product but maybe not this one? And
you know, is it okay to read something somebody handed
me even if I don't use it or drive a
different carr You know, I think everyone's in trying to
(39:12):
support media. It's that age old question, which you know,
I think comes down to consumers don't like paying subscriptions, right,
and the only way around subscriptions is advertising and free content.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
This is the complexity of this whole thing, I think
is a very very complex thing that we are negotiating trust.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
Okay, are you gun to head?
Speaker 7 (39:34):
I am definitely citing a publisher first, okay. And I
think it's because of what Julia mentioned. Of these are
the facts of the story. And if I'm writing an
academic article, or if I'm writing a piece that requires citations,
I think it's so deeply ingrained in me to go
to a really credible source. And we've been raised knowing
(39:56):
that credible sources again aren't things like Wikipedia, even we
may get our.
Speaker 8 (40:00):
Information from there.
Speaker 7 (40:02):
It's things like the New York Times or the Wall
Street Journal or Forbes to cite, and then I'd probably
go to podcasts after that, because a lot of times
it's an expert.
Speaker 8 (40:10):
That is researching, pulling data.
Speaker 7 (40:13):
From news sources like news articles and publishers, and then
of course creators and brands, like Maya said, are at
the very bottom, just because it does sometimes feel like
there's an ulterior motive that they're not being totally.
Speaker 8 (40:23):
Honest with us.
Speaker 7 (40:25):
But the question was different, and it was like, how
can I convince my friends of X, Y and Z.
Speaker 8 (40:30):
I think the order would be completely.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
Different, super interesting, Julia gun tohead, bring us home.
Speaker 6 (40:37):
I have to go with publisher first, podcasters, brands, and
then content creators.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Oh.
Speaker 6 (40:43):
You know, the more we talk about it, the more
I realize it's like I could say all I want.
I still do believe obviously everything I said. Yeah, but
it's like publishers New York Times. I've just told them
to this standard of like this is far more credible
than some dot com, some dot net, some blog or
whatever on the internet. So I don't know why when
you asked me that question, I want to say it
should be podcasters, but I really couldn't, like honestly say
(41:06):
that it has to be publishers for me, because you know,
they have like boots on the ground journalism, and they
have their whole reputation, which is really strong, relies on
the fact that they can put forth information that is
credible and you know how much you believe it. It's
like in what sources you're going to that's like different,
but you know that's their whole thing that they're built on.
So I do believe in the law.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
I wonder if this is a case of that, like
maybe there is a thing that you rationalize in your
minds or in our collective minds, but perhaps we don't
feel like we're in gun to head situations where it's
that I have to like find the source the source.
I mean, like during COVID, like if it wasn't coming
from the CDC or something like that, I was like,
(41:48):
don't believe it, don't believe you don't believe it because
that's a gun to head situation. But I guess when
we're walking through life, navigating life, we're not operating at
those level of stakes. I suppose, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (41:59):
I think it's because I feel like so many of
the topics being counter and the situations W encounter are
just too nuanced in life to have a right or wrong, credible,
believe it or not, don't believe it. Like there are
things that other publications or podcasters that I don't love.
They'll say stuff. I'm like, you know what, I most
of the time don't.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Really believe your arguments.
Speaker 6 (42:18):
But you've got a point here, and I think it's
like these issues are too complex to be like there's
one side of truth and then there's the whole other
part of the everything else. Yeah, whereas I think it's
just too I try to form my own nuanced opinion
based off of the things I've collected from things that
I trust but I don't always agree with, because I
want to believe that I can create an opinion that
(42:41):
is founded on my beliefs but based on truth in facts.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Well said Aria, Julia Maya. You never cease to amaze,
but very very grateful for your insight, for your perspective,
not just the way you articulated, but actually the candor
in which you brought forward. And as we you know,
sign off the final thought, and I'm curious for we
are final thought, Gail before we say goodbye here. So
(43:05):
like I still go back to Marshall mccluan, the media
works us over completely but the media that I think
we typically confine mccluan's thinking is, is like the actual
media we read, television, print out of home radio. But
there's the media of people that I think that we
don't really factor into that negotiation. Yeah, because all things
(43:26):
that we heard today is really not just the source itself,
but it's the people on the other end of the
source and how those that information gets negotiated with my
people who are like me, which is in and of
itself its own credentialized source. The media works as over
completely the media people that being the media we don't
(43:46):
think enough about.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Yeah, No, I am encouraged, right, like processing what I
just heard from you guys from Maya, Julia Ariya, like
your pro journalism, which I love. I think it's so important.
And you named a lot of institutions. They spend a
lot of money and they don't get enough AD dollars,
right because the marketers are like, oh, I don't want
(44:09):
to be near politics or controversy, and so the very
institutions you're going, hey, they are credible, like you're saying,
they're up there and you're one or two of trusted sources,
and yet is for the marketers that are listening to
this show, like you gotta support them.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
Right, You've got to support journalism.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
It's okay, we can separate if you guys understand the algorithm.
You know the difference between the ad in the content
and the content. So I think there's a good wake
up call here for me, which is, you guys know
the institutions and you respect journalism. I think that's a
really important takeaway for marketers who may be investing more
(44:50):
in aislop yeah than journalism.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
So as you're thinking about your budgets, maybe.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
A little less slop, a little more journalism.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
Just the thought. Well said Aria Julia Mayah. Thank you
so very much, and thank you all the listeners again
for joining us for another episode of Market Says. This
is a place where we learn. We learn so very much.
The tables turn. We are the students and the market
is the teacher. Thank you all for teaching us peace.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
Market Says is a bubblo media. iHeart podcast production. If
you're not in the conversation, you're not in the game.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We are here with the next episode of my favorite show.
Market says, it's the one where I get smarter every
single episode. So that is the genius of having doctor
Marcus Collins with us. But more importantly, we have three
incredible students from the Raw School of Business at University
(00:37):
of Michigan, and they're going to teach us all a
thing or two about gen Z, what we thought we
know and what we really know?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
What is the truth?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
We're going to dig in and figure it out. And
today's a really interesting topic. Marcus.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
It's all about like sources.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
I mean, I think about growing up and you remember
like the teachers screaming at you about plagiarism and how
to source, like where you got your information in every
paper like that was like half your grade, it felt like,
was how good you were at sourcing? And yet today
what's the source? Do we even know? So, Julia Maya Aria,
(01:19):
we're here to talk about sources. Where do you get
your information? Where is gen Z picking up the wisdom?
And do you even know what the sources?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
And do you care.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
A couple of stats to get us into it or Marcus,
do you want to drop some stats?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
I mean this setup was just quite perfect. I mean,
all I could think about is growing up. The crown
jewel of our house from my mother in particular, who
is an academic, was the Encyclopedia Britannicus we had in
the house. She like, look at our house, Look what
we had, Look at the brilliance in our house? Right?
Oh yeah. The idea of Wikipedia just blew her brain.
She's like, what, Like, we're just taking the word of
(01:58):
people and use that as citations. That makes no sense
at all, But it's true like growing up for me.
If Dan Rather didn't say it, or Walter Kronkit didn't say,
it's like, it ain't real, I don't believe it. But
the question became like to your point here is like
what is real? You know there was a time when
social networking platforms where we got more information than the news.
It really begs a question what is real? Where do
(02:20):
we cite or source reality? And so this group, the
market represented today will help us better understand that. So
considering it Bubbler, we're all about conversations. What we like
to start this conversation today is how do conversations start?
So I'll start with Maya, who is the goat? On
(02:41):
the podcast. At this point, she's like, did SNL been
here five times? Like she's a five timer? So Maya
will start with you here something you heard, you read,
you saw that you feel compelled to tell someone about,
and how did you source it? How did you cite it?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
Yeah, well again thanks for having me back. But the
most recent thing that I read was actually on substack
and it was a piece about kind of the neuroscience
behind whimsy. It was an interesting title and I started
reading it and there was a stat on how there's
this concept of a default mode network where someone isn't
entirely present in the moment mentally, they're not entirely focused,
(03:21):
and there was a stat saying that about like forty
seven percent, about half of adults are in that space
during their time when they're awake during the day. So
as someone that is part of that stat, I was like,
no way, I'm focused, I'm dialed in. And I started
looking into what their sources were on that actual piece
and it seemed legit like it was science dot com,
(03:44):
which sounds like the epitome of proof, and they had
actual doctors and professionals behind it. So that was my
first question of some information that I was given. But
when I look at news sources like Substack, those are
always opinion pieces. So when I look at those, I
almost always want to look back at the sources, especially
when it's almost attacking me.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Well, this actually begs a really interesting question, which almost
speaks to your framing, Gail, that I wonder, maya, what
had it gotten your attention if it was a stat
that seemed to be confirming your bias, if that research
you heard was confirmation to your experience as a gen Z,
would you have even stopped to sort of site check
(04:28):
the citation? You could be honest, you could be honest.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
I'm not entirely sure, Like, at least with this specific topic,
it's not as polarizing per se, So I definitely wouldn't
have questioned it because it doesn't seem too outlandish. So,
I mean, confirmation bias is huge, especially with the space
we're in and the environment and the conversations we're having,
So it's easy to kind of surround yourself with this
(04:52):
bubble of information that you believe, and when you're in
those conversations that are less polarized, it's even easier to
kind of just say, yeah, I knew that.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Yeah, So, Julie, I'm curious that you're taken on this
one here because, like, MAYI make a good point about
substack that they are all opinions right there, are written
by someone who necessarily a journalist, are not necessarily bound
by sort of the standards of scientific writing. But honestly,
many publications they outsource their journalism or their writing to
(05:27):
contributors who are also unlicensed or don't have the credentials
that we expect from like a Waltzer Kronkite. And I'm
going to keep on the watchers. He's the guy. So
I mean, so the idea there is that, like, can
we even cite some of the publishers, the big publishers,
when those people are in many ways kind of like
(05:48):
substat writers. No shade, Julia talk to us and I
love you kind of weigh in on this idea of
like where does the credential lide? Does it lie at
the platform level? I E? Stack, So therefore it's opinion?
Or do we look at the good housekeeping seal of
Bill in the blank, your favorite online publisher and you
go that's enough for me.
Speaker 6 (06:09):
No, Yeah, that's a really really great point, And I
feel like similarly. Actually, I was going to mention this
literally yesterday. I think I just got into reading substack
articles and that was what I was gonna mention before
mine got to it before me. But I think to
your point about, you know, what qualifies as someone like
a credential or what does it take for you to
(06:29):
believe in somebody or for someone to be legitimate. I
think something I've realized after consuming media, especially in like
the last two years, people's opinions on like substack or
even like podcast hosts, I still value and believe their
opinions even if they don't necessarily have the license or
you know, some sort of scientific background. Because if it's
(06:50):
about subjects about you know, relationship advice or thinking about
how do better yourself and growth in motivation and those
types of things and those topics, who do we classify
as like qualified to speak on those things? Because I
think it's for me. I take advice from people that
I admire who they are as a person, and I
admire the traits that they embody. And so what makes
(07:13):
you know my friend who went to the university machine
with me, they're super super smart and qualified. They don't
you know, major in psychology. They don't have anything to like,
you know, show for their expertise, I guess, which is
not like real expertise. But if they're giving me advice
that I think is coming from their real experience and
it's worked for them, I would take it as much
(07:34):
as I would take someone else like Ox Cooper on
callor Daddy. She doesn't have like a real background to
be necessarily interviewing like celebrities and really qualified people, but
her questions are the same ones that I would want
to ask these people to like. I don't think it
takes necessarily some you know, degree to be able to
(07:54):
be qualified on certain topics that you're talking about. So
Subtec writers outsourcing applications or articles to contributors, I think
it's a lot more.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
I believe it, and I.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
Don't really question it as much as I think, you know,
other people might. And I would pretty much believe that
if it just had the name on it, or if
it was from a contributor, it wouldn't really bother me
too much.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So this is a good shout, and this is an
interesting shout, And I want your take on this one, Gail,
because I have an example. I want to highlight here.
It's an interesting shout because what I'm hearing you say, Julie,
which I think is actually quite fair, that you're like, listen,
I trust this person because we see the world similarly,
or at the very least, I am intrigued by their
point of view and how they see the world. And therefore,
(08:37):
when they have a point of view that may not
be validated by some housekeeping seal that we call a
degree or some license, you go, I kind of vibe
with that, right, And that's actually enough to me. And
the example I want to bring up, and I'd love
for you to wear into this one, Gail, hopefully you're
you're aware of it. Have you heard of doctor Cheyenne Bryant.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I's super familiar.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
So she presented herself as a therapist, Okay, a clinical
therapist is how she presented herself. And she talks a
lot about relationships and women's empowerment blah blah blah, and
like she had the Internet in a choke holde like
women were like tell her, doctor Cheyenne. They were all
in until there became a conversation about whether or not
she really had a doctorate. Oh and when she was
(09:20):
called out on it. She was extremely defensive and it
looked very very guilty, but only because she lied, right, yes, yeah, yeah, yeah,
So I guess, Julie, that's the question I have for you. So, like,
say Alex Cooper presented herself as doctor Cooper at first,
and she dropping all her relationship advice, you like tell her,
oh yeah, absolutely, one hundred percent, uh huh, go ahead, girl,
(09:41):
And then you find out that she's actually not a doctor,
not even licensed therapist, that she actually didn't finish her
doctoral degree. Do you go, oh, man, I feel duped
or do you go that don't really matter because.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
The vibes, it really depends.
Speaker 6 (09:58):
Like if it's like relationship, that's something where it's like
everyone experiences that, and it's not like a deep like
a medical like it's very specific you need a lot
of knowledge about. I don't know, Like it's like a
cardiovascular disease is like that. I would need you to
be a doctor, and I wouldn't believe anything you're saying
if you didn't go to medical school. But if it's
(10:19):
something about like relationship advice or like women's empowerment, you know,
I think every woman and every person that's been a
relationship has valuable insight and experiences and lived experiences that
can you know, be beneficial to learn from or you know,
are just as valuable, I think, because at the end
of the day, we're all human and ask scoopers have
experience similar things that happen in her relationship that you
(10:40):
know I do or other people do. So depending on
the type of expertise, my value in their licensing will vary.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
H which the act.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Suber example is a really great one because I think, Yeah,
if she was trying to be like an actual talk
about something like super specific and required that type of credential,
I wouldn't buy it at all, But she does, and
so it's okay.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Yeah. And I suppose though, if Alex said that she
was credential as a doctor and then you find out
she weren't, would that I suppose Julie with that erode
the trust you had in her, because it's no longer
as authentic even though her experiences were.
Speaker 6 (11:16):
I think so because I feel like that to me
is just like straight up dishonesty, and to me it
kind of goes back to Funnily enough, like the other
episode we talked about when I was here on the show.
It's kind of like a money grab. It's her licensing.
Then her pretending to be a doctor was trying to,
you know, make her seem more qualified than she really is,
just so that way she could get more viewers or
(11:37):
get more listeners and that kind of thing. Yeah, And
to be honest with you, when I first heard about
her podcast, because my older sister listens to her a bunch,
I was like, why would I want to listen to her,
Like I don't even know she going to ask good questions,
Like why would I trust her? And then I gave
her podcast a shot, and I'm like, damn, if I
was interviewing this person, I would want to know the
exact same things. Yeah, And I think it really changed
my perception of like you have this image of like
(11:59):
who you think is who isn't, And it really made
me realize my biases. And I'm like, it wouldn't matter
if she was a doctor or not, Like I would
want to know the same things. And she's asking the
ones even if you don't need a license to be
able to ask these great questions. So that was just
the true sents I threw out there, Like I was
such a doubter in the beginning, because I did value
these credential things, and then it kind of changed my
perception once I started consuming media by people that weren't
(12:21):
like that, and it's like, these are topics that you
don't necessarily need to be licensed to talk about.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I mean, it's essentially congruents over credentials that the real
credence comes from people like me. All right, Aria, you
are the neophyight to market says so I'm really curious,
what do you listened to read her that you found
yourself sort of repeating as if it were God's ful.
Speaker 7 (12:47):
I'm going to go ahead and move into pop culture
a little bit. I think it's the year of great
movies coming out. So we have the Odissey, we've got
Spider Man, Dune. The common denominator here, of course, being Sendaia,
and she is just a fashion icon. I feel like
everybody's constantly talking about her looks on premieres and red carpets.
(13:08):
Something that I've been sharing a lot recently was when
her stylist Lroach basically went from Paris that morning, took
something fresh off the runway on a Scaprelly show and
flew it to her the same day to London, and
then they made it this whole side part of the
launch where he was showing bts on his Instagram. People
(13:31):
were talking about it, asking Zindai about it. I was like,
oh my gosh, like this is awesome and such a
good way to promote the odyssey, and I was telling
all of my friends about it.
Speaker 8 (13:40):
I just thought it was really like.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
A fun moment in pop culture to be able to
share with people.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
So I love that.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
I mean, like, Lrooch is an interesting one because yeah,
I mean exactly we know his Christma fashion perspective. The
interesting part here is that like there were all these
rumors about Zendia of being married. You saw like you
know AI photos and blah blah blah blah. But Larote's
my understanding is that he's the one who actually dropped Dine.
(14:10):
Did you hear that too?
Speaker 8 (14:11):
Yeah? I think so.
Speaker 7 (14:12):
I saw that press interview where he basically was like, honey,
they're already married and then walked off.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Lisa. There it goes again about like credentialed so worse, Yeah,
like who is the licensed source? And I think that
like what really gets down to is like trust And
I suppose if I'm pulling credentialed information here. You know,
the Adaman Trust Institute would talk a lot about how
our trust and institutions are eroding, and I suppose I
(14:41):
asked this question the three of you all opened popcorn style, like,
is that why we were going to these outside sources
because the normal institutions no longer either feel relevant or
trustworthy based on our conversation? Is that what's happening here?
Speaker 7 (14:58):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of in ingredients thrown
into the mix in the sense of gen Z maybe
not going to these credible sources as much. The first
being that there have been moments or controversies in the
past couple of months where people feel like what's being
reported with these news publications isn't necessarily completely accurate, and
(15:20):
so immediately you're losing that trust. I think the other
thing is that we're spending so much time on social
media now that a lot of times the information we're
seeing on our socials is just coming across our desk first,
and I think where a generation that gets a lot
of media, we consume it really quickly and really easily,
so sometimes it is easier to just scroll and see
(15:42):
what comes across your for you page as opposed to
searching for the information on the New York Times or
waiting a couple more days for something to get published
on there. And then I would also say that trust
is growing in social media as a whole in their platforms,
not necessarily because of specific creators we really like or
go out and seek, but because we have a lot
(16:04):
of trust in our algorithms. And I'm really seeing this
when I'm scrolling on TikTok versus Instagram reels. I'm so
much more likely to stick on TikTok and actually follow
somebody or stick through the entire video because it feels
like my for you page really knows me and aligns
with me and my beliefs and what I'm wanting to consume,
whereas Instagram reels, I'm not really on it as much.
(16:25):
I'm not really enjoying the content as much, so I'm
probably not going out of my way to like those
posts or go to creator's page. And I think that
trust in the algorithm is then transitive to the people
that we begin following and seeing on our platforms.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Gail, will you share that, what do you think?
Speaker 2 (16:42):
What do you feel so terrifying and yet fascinating, which
is usually my reaction on this show. The trust in
the algorithm, right, Like everything in my gut goes, Wait,
the algorithm is there to.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Manipulate you to spend more time.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And the more time that you spend, the more money
the platforms can make, and the more ads we can serve. Ultimately,
the more marketing and commerce that can happen.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
That fuels the whole engine.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So part of me as a marketer goes, yeah, right,
whin more time, more money, more attention.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Which is scarce.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
The other part of me goes the thing I always
love about like gen Z and you guys help keep
me honest on this, which is like, you're aware of
the algorithm that's there theoretically to manipulate you, But is
it manipulating you?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
If you're aware and you're in on it, right, you're.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
Making this conscious choice and you're noticing, like the algorithm
on one social versus another, is one's better and it's
learned you more for whatever reasons. Maybe it's better, maybe
you've spent more time, right, who knows, but I think
it's super interesting. You're the first generation that's like fully
in on the game. It's like you get marketing. You know,
(17:59):
you know what you're tensions worth, You're choosing where you
put it.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I think that it's a little more transparent and.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Overt than maybe prior generations where we were victims maya.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
I want you to take on this for sure, because
what I hear you saying, Gail, it feels almost like
this is a crafts example. It's all that thuring came
my mind. So bear with me here. Like it's almost
like gen Z is going to the strip club knowing
that the dancers don't love them. It's like, look, I know,
I'm not funny loving the club Like I'm here just
spend my money entertainment, where maybe back in the day
(18:34):
we was like I found the love of my life
with the club. Is like, oh, Fred, that's not love.
I wonder, like, am I off gar It's a crass example,
I know, but like La, it doesn't the vibes.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
Right, yeah, I mean, I guess And everything that you
were saying, Gail, what I was thinking about was this
recent conversation I had with my friend about how our
phones are listening to us, and her take was I
don't mind, yeah, which I thought was crazy. I'm a
little worried. She was like, you know what, it's my algorithm.
It's telling me what I want to hear. It's listening
to me. Sure, but hey, if it helps me get
(19:08):
like a discount that I didn't know existed, then I'm down. Yeah,
that's kind of feeding into the idea that we're very
well aware of how we're being marketed to. And a
lot of the people that I've spoken to are fine
being targeted as consumers because it's feeding into what they
would need as consumers.
Speaker 8 (19:25):
Right, they're enjoying it.
Speaker 5 (19:27):
But I think when we also look at all these areas,
if you look at gen Z, we're in this unique
space where we also grew up having our teachers tell
us like not to Wikipedia and being very well aware
about our sources. And then for me it was around
high school where there was this boom of just AI
and so information was already super accessible, but then it
(19:50):
became right there for you. It became tailored. Information wasn't
just accessible, it was for your thoughts. So with what
our generation consumes, the way I am and the way
I see a lot of my peers, we're automatically cynics
to information. We've seen a lot of misinformation. We're aware
of it. We're aware that Wikipedia isn't the best, But
(20:11):
is that the source that Gemini is telling me? This
is information from maybe and that's not something everyone's checking.
That then comes into a conversation that I would love
to learn more about what you guys think about in
terms of what our own social responsibility is, if not
even social responsibility, but personal responsibility to kind of challenge
(20:31):
those beliefs that we're so comfortable in.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Let's keep pulling on nex I love that. I love that. Yeah, Like,
if you know it's a ruse, are you propagating it
by engaging in it as opposed to being like, no,
I'm good, Julie, what's your take?
Speaker 6 (20:47):
First off, just wow, Maya, you really got my head
ticking without what I was like, damn, you were spitting
bars because I completely agree with so many of the
things that you brought up. And I think, you know, Marcus,
to your point about like what is our social responsibility?
I think you know the purpose of these news outlets
and a lot of you know, these companies, if they're
trying to spread misinformation is because they want you to
(21:07):
believe them, right, So, whether or not you believe in
the beliefs that they're promoting. I think if you choose
to believe them, then you are not doing your social
responsibility and you're instead feeding into their misinformation or basically
satisfying what they want. But if you inside actually don't
believe it or reject it, or you choose to stay
(21:27):
true to like what you believe in or believe what
you know to be is credible in real information, then
you are fundamentally doing what they are, you know, rejecting
what they're trying to do, and you're sticking up for
the greater social good of you know, believing what's real.
And I think for me personally in my experience is
that I've just been so disillusioned by major news outlets.
(21:48):
I've seen them get things wrong. I've seen them release
updates that are like, oh, like just kidding, we did
that wrong, like that it's actually this number and stuff.
And something else too I realized is that after interning
or working in the workforce, these companies are made up
of people just like even me, Like we're going to
be working at big corporate companies and I am going
(22:09):
to be part of these campaigns that are going to
be marketing or communicating to the mass audiences.
Speaker 8 (22:14):
Like if I was.
Speaker 6 (22:15):
Under the name of a big publisher or just myself,
the work is still mine, right, So I'm like, I
know I make mistakes sometimes, I know I'm not always right.
So I bet you the people that work for these
companies are also just human, Like we're all at the
end of the day, like on this way more similar
playing field than I think. And I feel like I
know that now because I've seen that happen at the
(22:37):
different companies I've worked for, So it really kind of
just changes my perspective in that way.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
I mean, I wonder if that goes back to your
early idea that they don't have to be credentialized for
you to buy in. Yeah, they like, like, I know,
these folks make mistakes and right, so maybe even the
ones that you know, you seek news outlets, they'll show
a photo of Laurence Fishburne and say it's Samuel Jackson.
You're like, uh, fam, that is not so happening more and.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
More, right, yes, with AI.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Now right with you know, media companies and marketing organizations
and everyone moving to efficiency through AI, we're seeing more
of that, Like that's not him, this is not Laurence Fishburn,
I know who that is, right, Like it's crazy the
level of like acceptance I think we now have.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Like I remember the day is like pre computer because I'm.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Old, seasoned, seasoned, that old.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Experienced, right, Like I was working in a PR agency.
There were forty eight pages of press releases on a
new iron, not the golf kind, like the laundry iron,
you know one. No one should ever write forty eight pages,
certainly before computers, like insanity. And there was one typo
at the end of like page seven press release five
(23:51):
on this new Nurelko iron, and I almost got fired,
fired like it was like one of my first jobs,
and it was like whoa, never again? And then flash forward.
I got a job at Microsoft and I asked the
CMO my first day there. I was like, what mistake
am I gonna make? Mitch, And she was like, Oh,
you're gonna proof reread your emails. Don't waste time. People
(24:14):
are smart. I was like, oh my god.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
For me, that was when the world changed and I
stopped proofreading, right, But that was just typos.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Now you're talking facts. Do you feel like there's a
point where we just stop fact checking.
Speaker 3 (24:29):
And believe what we want to believe, or are we
already there.
Speaker 9 (24:32):
I feel like we're all gonna internally believe kind of
what we want to hear to some extent, Like I
think when it comes to hard numbers and facts and
the topic that we're talking about, if it's something that
is way.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Bigger than you know, relationship advice or something like that,
the validity of the stats does matter. And I think
it more so matters that we all talk about the
same ones and that we can at least agree on
the hard evidence. And then your interpretation of it. That's
where it's a little bit out of our control. We're
going to interpret it a little bit differently based off
of what we want how we want to see it.
(25:06):
But let's make sure that what we're all seeing is
what we're agreeing upon. But I wouldn't say it's like
all hope is lost. I think there are still ways
that and their practices to try our best to make
it as honest as possible.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
I mean, I can't help but conjure Marshall McLuhan, you
know it is the media works us over completely, like
it leaves no part of us untouched, unfiltered, unaltered.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Right, it's not the method, just the battering ram, that's right.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
So what I way to do is like just switch
over to you little Aria a bit here, because you
brought up the idea of like movies and this is like,
you're right, it's an amazing summer from movies like Obsession,
back Rooms. Horror is having its moment at the moment.
But my question though here is about like sighting sources
(26:05):
when you see a trailer and then you juxtapose that
to what you see or Rotten Tomatoes the critics score
in the audience store, Like how swayed are you by this?
Because I've seen people that heard about a movie and go,
oh I heard it sucks, and you go, where'd you
hear that? And had a bad Rotten Tomato score? Is
that like the end all be all here? Does it matter?
(26:29):
All right? Talk to us?
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I mean, I think this falls totally back into this
idea of confirmation bias, where if I'm seeing a low
row Tomatoes score, but my friends are like, this is
my comfort movie.
Speaker 8 (26:40):
I've seen this five times. You have to watch it.
Speaker 7 (26:43):
This is amazing, Like, go see it. I probably will
watch it if it's like twenty eight percent ro On Tomatoes.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
I don't care.
Speaker 7 (26:49):
I'll watch it because my friend told me to watch it.
On the other side of that, though, if I'm seeing
this movie that's like ninety five percent Rotten Tomatoes and
my friends are like, we saw nos horrible, don't watch it,
I'd be like, WHOA. I mean, Ronen Tomatoes is saying
it's good, So I kind of want to give it
a chance and give it a go. But I mean,
(27:10):
I think even now Rotten Tomatoes isn't having the same
pull it had on me even five ten years ago.
Letterboxed is the next big thing, right, So being able
to see socially what your friends are following and how
they're rating it, that falls into like social proof and
you know, being with these people that are like you,
really trusting their opinions on a platform, and then everything
(27:34):
that you're seeing on socials. I think part of the
reason why obsession was so big was because people loved
pulling clips and audio and reenacting those scenes on TikTok,
which then continued to snowball into something greater where it
was like, well everybody online is talking about it.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
I don't want fomo, so I don't.
Speaker 7 (27:54):
Care how many like ratings this has on Rotten tomatoes?
What percent has on rotten tomatoes. I'm gonna go watch it.
Speaker 8 (27:59):
So I can be in the know.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
There is the contradictions that Rod Tomatos doesn't matter if
my friends say is cool, but if a France say
is good, I'm like Rod Tomato said this, So for me,
I'm like, how do you all navigate the life that
you live? Like if these things are sort of creating
these opposites and these contradictions in these competing ideas, how
do you decide what's worth your attention, your money, your effort.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
The contradiction thing I think is super fascinating because I
think Maya, when you were talking about like responsibility, right,
I was having this whole thing of like it's not
like social responsibility to the masses, but it's almost like
you have a responsibility to yourself to open up your
aperture enough. On the one side of the coin, like
you need the responsibility to something bigger than the algorithm
(28:50):
or your life and your interests are going to get
so small. But then this example is everyone's talking about obsession.
You gotta go see it all of a sudden. Now
there's like mass opinion coming into your micro hyper focused feeds.
Is that just the natural balance of things, Like do
(29:11):
you think one's more or less influential.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
For you guys?
Speaker 6 (29:15):
To me, it wouldn't matter if Rotten Tomato says it's amazing,
because literally, like all my roommates they're talking about how
much they love New Girl. I can't stand so additional.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I'm sorry, like there's no hay to gets here.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
I haven't seen a time by her, but I will
literally never watch New Girl.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Like can Schmid's the funniest. It's such a good show.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, Like that's the thing. I don't know why.
Speaker 6 (29:35):
It's because I was just I watched five hundred Days
the summer and I like really wanted to love it,
but I didn't love her character and that so like
literally I cannot tell you why. I just have, like,
you know, a version. And I just think like when
it's something pop culture based, like movies or music and
stuff like that, I feel like it's so important to
also just form your own opinion because I think it's
so easy to take the opinions of others and kind
(29:58):
of like regurgitate them as your own, because I do
all the time, especially if it's something that I'm like,
I'm going to be like self conscious about I don't
know a ton about this, but this critic said it
was like super cool and like I should love it,
and then I'll be like, oh, to be a part
of the conversation. I'm going to adopt the opinions that
I feel like credible people or my friends that I
admire a lot are saying. I think I've seen that
(30:20):
in myself become more individualized, where it's like there's always
going to be opinions, there's always going to be voices
swaying you. At some point. It's just whether or not
you think you yourself. It's just worth it to you
and what you really value.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
I mean, the idea of co opting other people's opinions
your own. That's the entire industry of academia. It's good. Yeah,
someone says something you're like, that's really smart. I'm just
gonna keep saying that over and over. By the way,
five hundred days this summer, I can watch this movie
over and really over and over and over. If it's
ever on television, I'm watching it. It gets me in
(30:54):
my heart every single time. Okay, so we're at that
part of the show We're gonna do care don't care stution. Addition,
where name an institution when that institution reports information, do
you care or don't care with regards to shaping your
worldview and how you use that information to circulate information
(31:15):
into your people. So podcasts care don't care?
Speaker 6 (31:19):
Juliet, I feel like it's such a convenient way to
consume media. And to me, it's not just like, oh,
I'm turning on like the news broadcast or the radio
and listening to someone that I like, don't really really
want to listen.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
To that much.
Speaker 6 (31:31):
It's like I can choose from a million different podcast
creators about topics that I'm interested in, and if it's
about something that you know, again, I want there to
be like as a credential person, I can look up
their credentials and it's just like I kind of just
get in the flow and I like like the topics
they talk about, and it's like something I can tune
into all the time. Yeah, and it really gets you
sucked in and I love that. And I think there's
(31:52):
just so many topics that podcasts cover and it's something
that really shapes a lot of what I think about.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Mayakara don't care.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
Definitely care.
Speaker 5 (32:01):
I think we're also what podcasts are uniquely good at
is being about conversation, and so regardless of what perspective
you're listening to, it gets you thinking, and even if
you don't agree with it, you're now thinking about this topic.
And it's so convenient because whoever made that podcast did
the research for you.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
They gave you the stats, but then.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
They're talking about their opinion, and that can get you
thinking about what you might think, what you might not think.
So not only does it give you information, but it
brings you into the conversation.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
It's just meta what you did there, because that's exact
what we're doing here, exactly here where the conversations happen.
One hundred percent Ari you care, don't care podcasts.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
I love what Maya said. I also do really care.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
I think podcasts do a great job at getting into
niche topics when.
Speaker 8 (32:45):
It comes to educational situations, and.
Speaker 7 (32:48):
I love finding experts in their podcasts who can really
like dive deep on different episodes and do different spins,
and so throughout a couple hours of listening to them,
I do almost feel connected to them in a sense,
And I honestly.
Speaker 8 (33:05):
Think podcasters now are replacing the traditional influencer in a way.
Speaker 7 (33:13):
I always trust what podcasters have to say, and honestly,
with the brand endorsements and the advertisements, I'm a lot
more willing to listen to that than sit through a
ninety second video on TikTok.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
Yeah all right, so podcast it's a thing. The market
says it's a thing. What about like your traditional news sources.
I'm talking New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post.
Even television is NBC, Yes, sixty minutes, it's exactly yeah, yeah,
Today's show as an institution, care, don't care? Maya like comma?
(33:46):
Does it hold the same weight as podcasts that you
care about?
Speaker 5 (33:50):
I care? I do, and I really exceptionally care when
they have social media because like I'm following the Wall
Street Journal and they have what like a minute long
click explaining something that I see is factual, and I
love doing that. But what they do have to say,
at least when it comes to news platforms that are
a bit more bipartisan, that aren't as politically or like
(34:13):
skewed in one direction or another, I do value those opinions,
and maybe that's just something that's been kind of given
to me as a responsibility because as a freshman at
the University of Michigan, that was one of the first
things we were taught, Like, we were shown this big
graph of all these different news sources of where they
stand politically, how factual they are, how opinion neated they are,
(34:34):
And the Wall Street Journal was kind of like a
happy middle for a lot of those things. So it
does matter, And maybe it's less about fostering conversation more
about just knowing what's happening in the world.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
Yeah, we need more media literacy. It's a must, absolutely,
all right, care don't care traditional news sources.
Speaker 8 (34:53):
Okay, I might go against maya little bit.
Speaker 7 (34:56):
I would say I care for foundational store in context.
In terms of the first piece of media I'm jumping
to probably not going to be The New York Times
or the Wall Street Journal. I honestly think it's just
because we're consuming so much media these days, that's a
lot easier to process than pulling up an entire article,
(35:19):
getting a subscription, sitting.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
Down and really hunkering down.
Speaker 7 (35:23):
If there's an article that piques my interest, I will
totally hunker down and spend like forty minutes just scrolling
and reading that. But when it comes to, you know,
swaying public opinion or really taking a stance on a story,
I would much rather have those conversations online, following creators
that I really trust, or talking with my friends as
(35:45):
opposed to gathering those opinions from a large print publication.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Julia care, don't care.
Speaker 6 (35:53):
This is such a cop out answer, But I'm in
the middle, like, I kind of care. I think because
certain news outlets are so so so heavily politically biased
and the framing leans so so so one way or
the other. When it comes to the framing of things,
I don't really trust it that much. It comes some disillusion,
so disappointed, and you know how information has been presented
(36:14):
just so that way you can confirm with people's beliefs
or you know, insight of political belief. But I will
still say, like I consume the New York Times, like
their podcast version of news and then their Instagram. I
fall all the time I get there, like morning newsletter
thing that is my primary source for the first side
of news that makes sense. If I heard about like
(36:36):
this big thing just happened, it was like, oh, breaking news,
like x y Z just happened. I will trust if
the New York Times reported it, if Wall Street Journal
report it, or you know, if it was just the headline,
I will believe that it happened. But if I want
to look deeper into the nuances of it, I'm far
more picky about my sources. And that's when my how
(36:56):
much I care about these institutions kind of goes away
a little bit because I read The Morning Brew, which
is like another very business.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
Seed Michigan and lum by the way, Michigan lum a.
Speaker 6 (37:04):
Yeah, yeah, that was so cool to me. So that's
like my much more my reliable go to source. Whereas
these big name brand institutions, they are trustworthy to me
to voute next extent.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
So it's not that I.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
Don't completely care, but I care enough to keep them around.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Wow, really really well said thank you. Yeah. So last
one here is care, don't care with regards to creators.
But I really want to do is actually rank these
like gun to head. You had to choose a citation
a source for information. Are you going to a creator?
Are you going to the news publication or podcasts? What
(37:42):
about brands?
Speaker 3 (37:43):
Can we add brands?
Speaker 1 (37:43):
That's actually a good shout. That's a good shout gale
because they are in many ways a publisher in and
of themselves. They are producing information, points of view about
things beyond just the value proposition. So gun ahead, creator, podcast, publisher, brand, go.
Speaker 5 (37:59):
I'd say publishers first, that's like the source of truth,
right yeah. Secondly I'd say podcasts, then creators, and then
brands and love brands and everything. But in my mindset,
it's because those last two creators and brands get something
out of me consuming their information or they're selling me something.
(38:21):
In my mind, a news publication, a conversation on a
podcast that's to give information that is to educate me,
and I can choose to disagree with it.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
But maybe I'm.
Speaker 5 (38:31):
Naive in that way, but I don't see an ulterior
motive to sharing information from those. Then a brand that
might be selling a product or a person that has
a background deal with them.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Unless the publisher is driven by if it bleeds, it
leads they can get more views to sale board. That's true,
which I think is again it's the system that we're in,
right yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
I think we're increasingly all ad supported, right you know.
And I think it's the same thing the creators face, right,
podcasters face like is it okay to do a host
read for this product but maybe not this one? And
you know, is it okay to read something somebody handed
me even if I don't use it or drive a
different carr You know, I think everyone's in trying to
(39:12):
support media. It's that age old question, which you know,
I think comes down to consumers don't like paying subscriptions, right,
and the only way around subscriptions is advertising and free content.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
This is the complexity of this whole thing, I think
is a very very complex thing that we are negotiating trust.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
Okay, are you gun to head?
Speaker 7 (39:34):
I am definitely citing a publisher first, okay. And I
think it's because of what Julia mentioned. Of these are
the facts of the story. And if I'm writing an
academic article, or if I'm writing a piece that requires citations,
I think it's so deeply ingrained in me to go
to a really credible source. And we've been raised knowing
(39:56):
that credible sources again aren't things like Wikipedia, even we
may get our.
Speaker 8 (40:00):
Information from there.
Speaker 7 (40:02):
It's things like the New York Times or the Wall
Street Journal or Forbes to cite, and then I'd probably
go to podcasts after that, because a lot of times
it's an expert.
Speaker 8 (40:10):
That is researching, pulling data.
Speaker 7 (40:13):
From news sources like news articles and publishers, and then
of course creators and brands, like Maya said, are at
the very bottom, just because it does sometimes feel like
there's an ulterior motive that they're not being totally.
Speaker 8 (40:23):
Honest with us.
Speaker 7 (40:25):
But the question was different, and it was like, how
can I convince my friends of X, Y and Z.
Speaker 8 (40:30):
I think the order would be completely.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
Different, super interesting, Julia gun tohead, bring us home.
Speaker 6 (40:37):
I have to go with publisher first, podcasters, brands, and
then content creators.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Oh.
Speaker 6 (40:43):
You know, the more we talk about it, the more
I realize it's like I could say all I want.
I still do believe obviously everything I said. Yeah, but
it's like publishers New York Times. I've just told them
to this standard of like this is far more credible
than some dot com, some dot net, some blog or
whatever on the internet. So I don't know why when
you asked me that question, I want to say it
should be podcasters, but I really couldn't, like honestly say
(41:06):
that it has to be publishers for me, because you know,
they have like boots on the ground journalism, and they
have their whole reputation, which is really strong, relies on
the fact that they can put forth information that is
credible and you know how much you believe it. It's
like in what sources you're going to that's like different,
but you know that's their whole thing that they're built on.
So I do believe in the law.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
I wonder if this is a case of that, like
maybe there is a thing that you rationalize in your
minds or in our collective minds, but perhaps we don't
feel like we're in gun to head situations where it's
that I have to like find the source the source.
I mean, like during COVID, like if it wasn't coming
from the CDC or something like that, I was like,
(41:48):
don't believe it, don't believe you don't believe it because
that's a gun to head situation. But I guess when
we're walking through life, navigating life, we're not operating at
those level of stakes. I suppose, Yeah.
Speaker 6 (41:59):
I think it's because I feel like so many of
the topics being counter and the situations W encounter are
just too nuanced in life to have a right or wrong, credible,
believe it or not, don't believe it. Like there are
things that other publications or podcasters that I don't love.
They'll say stuff. I'm like, you know what, I most
of the time don't.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Really believe your arguments.
Speaker 6 (42:18):
But you've got a point here, and I think it's
like these issues are too complex to be like there's
one side of truth and then there's the whole other
part of the everything else. Yeah, whereas I think it's
just too I try to form my own nuanced opinion
based off of the things I've collected from things that
I trust but I don't always agree with, because I
want to believe that I can create an opinion that
(42:41):
is founded on my beliefs but based on truth in facts.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Well said Aria, Julia Maya. You never cease to amaze,
but very very grateful for your insight, for your perspective,
not just the way you articulated, but actually the candor
in which you brought forward. And as we you know,
sign off the final thought, and I'm curious for we
are final thought, Gail before we say goodbye here. So
(43:05):
like I still go back to Marshall mccluan, the media
works us over completely but the media that I think
we typically confine mccluan's thinking is, is like the actual
media we read, television, print out of home radio. But
there's the media of people that I think that we
don't really factor into that negotiation. Yeah, because all things
(43:26):
that we heard today is really not just the source itself,
but it's the people on the other end of the
source and how those that information gets negotiated with my
people who are like me, which is in and of
itself its own credentialized source. The media works as over
completely the media people that being the media we don't
(43:46):
think enough about.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Yeah, No, I am encouraged, right, like processing what I
just heard from you guys from Maya, Julia Ariya, like
your pro journalism, which I love. I think it's so important.
And you named a lot of institutions. They spend a
lot of money and they don't get enough AD dollars,
right because the marketers are like, oh, I don't want
(44:09):
to be near politics or controversy, and so the very
institutions you're going, hey, they are credible, like you're saying,
they're up there and you're one or two of trusted sources,
and yet is for the marketers that are listening to
this show, like you gotta support them.
Speaker 3 (44:26):
Right, You've got to support journalism.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
It's okay, we can separate if you guys understand the algorithm.
You know the difference between the ad in the content
and the content. So I think there's a good wake
up call here for me, which is, you guys know
the institutions and you respect journalism. I think that's a
really important takeaway for marketers who may be investing more
(44:50):
in aislop yeah than journalism.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
So as you're thinking about your budgets, maybe.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
A little less slop, a little more journalism.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
Just the thought. Well said Aria Julia Mayah. Thank you
so very much, and thank you all the listeners again
for joining us for another episode of Market Says. This
is a place where we learn. We learn so very much.
The tables turn. We are the students and the market
is the teacher. Thank you all for teaching us peace.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
Market Says is a bubblo media. iHeart podcast production. If
you're not in the conversation, you're not in the game.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com