Customizing a Sustainable Future in Manufacturing: A Conversation with Roger Lee

In this captivating episode, we sit down with Roger Lee, the visionary CEO of TAL Manufacturing. With decades of experience in the garment industry, Roger provides a unique insight into how TAL Manufacturing integrates sustainability into its core practices. He shares the company’s impressive journey towards carbon neutrality by 2050 and its pioneering efforts in made-to-measure clothing, which not only reduces waste but enhances customer satisfaction as consumer demands evolve.

From the importance of curiosity in leadership to the transformative impact of technology on manufacturing, Roger's perspective underscores the need for innovation in an ever-changing landscape. He emphasizes the crucial role of artificial intelligence and computer vision tools in ensuring quality and transparency for consumers, reshaping industry standards.

Dive into the conversation as we explore what drives Roger personally and professionally, where he finds inspiration and his vision for the future of the apparel industry. This episode is perfect for anyone interested in sustainability, fashion innovation, or the intricacies of running a successful business in the modern world. Join us, and don’t forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review!

Roger Lee Biography
CEO | TAL APPAREL

A future-focused leader who joined the family business TAL Group (TAL) in 2005, Roger brought significant expertise from his strong IT background, setting TAL on a path toward innovation-led garment manufacturing as an INNOFACTURER®.

With a deep understanding of the garment industry, Roger’s expertise has enhanced TAL’s reach and ambitions. The company employs over 20,000 people in its manufacturing and supply chain operations across Thailand, Vietnam, and Ethiopia, with the capacity to produce more than 50 million garments annually. TAL supplies one out of every six men’s dress shirts sold in the U.S. By focusing on quality garments, on-time delivery, and value for money, the company has grown into one of Asia’s largest garment manufacturers.

Roger also oversees The Apparel Group (TAG) in the U.S., which provides design and logistics management services. During the 2020 pandemic, TAL acquired the made-to-measure pioneer J. Hilburn. Additionally, TAL shipped over 50 million masks to U.S. clients, including hoteliers, retailers, and consumer brands. In November 2020, TAL launched protective washable masks under the Enro brand, designed to withstand up to 100 washes.

Roger is actively involved in several trade organizations in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Government Textiles Advisory Board, where he served for seven years until reaching the mandatory tenure, the Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) of the Government of HKSAR, and the School of Fashion and Textiles at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He is currently a panel member of the ITC.

Episode Transcript

Rich (00:08):
So this is an episode that I've been looking forward to
for some time now.
From a personal perspective, itgives me a chance to reconnect
with Roger Lee, who is the CEOof TAL Manufacturing.
I met Roger many years ago whenI was at Brooks Brothers.
He is a remarkably intelligentleader, somebody who you can

(00:28):
learn a lot from.
And then, from a podcastperspective, the goal for Gotham
Paula and myself has alwaysbeen to introduce our audience
to as many differentperspectives of the retail and
global commerce industry aspossible, and today you will
have the opportunity to listento the CEO of one of the leading

(00:51):
manufacturers around the worldand gain just another wonderful
perspective of this ecosystemthat we love so much.
Roger will take us through theinnovation and growth path that
Tal has gone through over thelast several decades, and one of
the points of the podcast thatI think you'll find very
interesting is the exchangebetween he and Gautam on Tal's

(01:15):
commitment to sustainability,which really is decades old and
was put in place long beforesustainability became the
buzzword that it is today.
Roger talks through thecommitment that TAL has to
made-to-measure and how thatcontinues to advance and
modernize, and his perspectivethat at one point we may see

(01:39):
made-to-measure become muchlarger than it is today and that
in and of itself it can provideanswers when it comes to
efficiency and sustainability.
And then just the opportunityto talk a little bit more to
Roger about his own personalpassions, his insatiable
curiosity, the need to discoverand to create solutions.

(02:02):
In fact, we went on so muchthat we ran out of time with the
episode and Gautam and I didnot have the chance to debrief,
and so you will not get that atthe end of the episode, because
the episode itself we just foundto be interesting and so we let
it go.
Our co-host, paula, couldn't bewith us for this one, but we
know that she is listening.

(02:24):
Now let me give you a little bitabout Roger Lee.
He is a future-focused leaderwho joined the family business
TAL Group in 2005.
He brought significantexpertise from a strong IT
background, setting TAL on apath toward innovation-led
garment manufacturing.
As an innofacturer I love thatterm With a deep understanding

(02:44):
of the garment industry, rogers'expertise has enhanced Tal's
reach and ambition.
The company employs over 20,000people in its manufacturing and
supply chain operations acrossThailand, vietnam and Ethiopia,
with the capacity to producemore than 50 million garments
annually.
TAL supplies one out of everysix dress shirts sold in the

(03:04):
United States.
By focusing on quality garments, on-time delivery and value for
money, the company has grown.
Tal acquired themade-to-measure Pioneer J
Hilburn, based out of Dallas.
Additionally, tal shipped over50 million masks to US clients,

(03:33):
including hoteliers, retailersand consumer brands.
Roger is actively involved inseveral trade organizations in
Hong Kong, including the HongKong Government Textiles
Advisory Board, where he servedfor seven years until reaching
the mandatory tenure, theInnovation and Technology
Commission, itc of thegovernment of HKSAR and the

(03:53):
School of Fashion and Textilesat the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, and he is currentlya panel member of the ITC.
It is an absolute pleasure tohave you on the show, Roger.
Thank you very much for joiningus on Retail Relates today.

Roger (04:11):
Happy to be here.
Thanks for inviting me.

Rich (04:13):
So where in the world do we find you today?

Roger (04:15):
Today I'm in Singapore.
We moved here as a familyduring COVID, my wife's in
Singapore, so we now live here.

Rich (04:22):
Well, we appreciate you joining us today.
I am going to go ahead andstart with our first question.
We've read a little bit aboutyour bio and we have it the more
complete bio in the show notes.
So we take a little bit of aless traditional approach and,
instead of having you talk abouteverything you've done and go
from your history beginning toend, what are the three pivotal

(04:45):
moments that you think havebrought you to where you are
today?

Roger (04:49):
I think it starts from childhood where my father said
to me growing up that there willbe three things will happen to
you.
One is after college you'refinancially cut off so you've
got to make your own money.
That all his inheritance willgo to charity and don't come
back to work in the familybusiness.
And at that time I didn'trealize that the business was

(05:11):
not owned by us.
Okay, that was.
I was a kid, I didn't reallyunderstand that.
So he did cut me offfinancially after college.
He has.
I've seen his will.
All the money has gone is goingto charity.
But the third one wasn't trueand I did come back to the
family business.
The reason I'm saying that is Ithink if I wasn't given the
first two conditions, I wouldhave turned out different.

(05:32):
I wouldn't have been so hungry.
You know, he showed me the goodlife.
I wanted to continue to have agood life.
So I knew I had to work hard inorder to earn the money.
So that was one was to driveand motivation as a kid in order
to earn the money.
So that was one was to driveand motivation as a kid.
The second one I would say wasjoining consulting.
I was my first careers inconsulting.
People would say what did youlearn from consulting?
How's it related to what you'redoing manufacturing and apparel

(05:54):
industry?
I would say the biggest thing Ilearned was thinking from the
customer's point of view.
So you go in consulting, you goon customer's site, you're
being paid I don't know what.
The rate was crazy dollars perhour to consult and you know
nothing right In the beginning.
You know nothing.
So the key thing is to reallythink from their point of view.
What are they thinking?
What's the customer thinking?

(06:14):
What do they want?
So you spend a lot of timeputting yourself in their shoes.
In our business and most allbusinesses, I think it's know
different.
What is the customer thinkingif you're trying to sell them
something, why do they need you?
That I think I learned from theconsulting days.
So that was if I didn't joinconsulting, I don't think I'd be
able to do a lot of what I dotoday, because I've been trained

(06:34):
how to think from the otherpoint of view, and this also
relates to people, not justcustomers your team what's your
team thinking?
How do they feel?
How do you get feedback?
In consulting, you have no hardassets.
All your assets are people.
So if you don't have goodpeople, you can't retain good
people, you know you can't dowell.
So I think that's no differentin any industry.
So I think that's the secondbig thing that I would say has

(06:59):
really, really made me who I amtoday.
The third one is a little bitmore obscure in that I've been
privileged.
I joined a group called YPO.
It stands for Young PresidentsOrganization.
It's a nonprofit started in theUS.
It's really for young CEOs tojoin and to learn from each
other.
Ypo has changed me in two majorways.
One is I have a group of CEOmates I guess you can call them

(07:20):
that.
We get together once a month ina strictly confidential
environment and we can share ourpains and sufferings and
success.
It's a group of people that youhave that normally in a normal
work environment, you have noone to talk to a CEO of a
company, no one to share pains,no one to learn from.
That's really changed.
That's helped a lot.
In addition, I'm lucky to go toHarvard every year.
It's a YPO Harvard program,harvard Business School program.

(07:42):
Every year I spend a week andthis is where I'm going to in a
couple of weeks In Harvard,completely shut off from outside
and we just work.
It's intense work.
It's probably the hardestintellectual work I'll do within
one week in the whole year isthat week, and I've really
learned a lot from theprofessors and from the fellow
CEOs, members that attend, andto me it's just learning.

(08:04):
I've learned so much from that.
It's changed a lot of how Iapproach running our business.
So I'll say those are the threebiggest things I could think of
.

Rich (08:11):
And if you didn't wind up back in this business, what do
you think you would have doneinstead?

Roger (08:17):
I've always had the ambition.
I'm not sure how easy it wouldhave been to run a company Not
for the money, not for the title, more from the point of view of
creating something.
I think you have the most powerto create something when you're
at the top of the company,because you can create something
that's holistic.
When you're running a function,what you create is within your

(08:40):
function and is not as holisticas being at the top.
So I don't know which industryI would have ended up in.
I think there's multipleindustries I could have done.
I think not consulting.
I think consulting is a greatbase for 10 years, but I really
want to create something lastingand that's moving into industry
.
So I think I could have movedinto different industries.
I have a computer science,electronic engineering

(09:01):
background, so I think there's afew things I could have done.

Gautham (09:03):
Let me double click on that point.
I have an engineeringbackground, so I think there's a
few things I could have done.
Let me double click on thatpoint.
You know I have an engineeringbackground myself before I moved
into business.
What was that point, thatpivotal point that made you
transition from an engineeringmindset into wanting or was it
always inherent that you wantedto be a business professional
leading?

Roger (09:21):
a company.
I guess I've always had thatmindset growing up that I wanted
to be a business professional.
Engineering was something myfather guided me towards doing.
It wasn't my first choice.
I wanted to just go awaystraight and study business
studies.
And he says, well, you could doan MBA later.
You don't need to do a BBA,let's learn something really
hard and good.

(09:42):
So I said okay.
So I listened to him and didengineering.
But I think engineering is allabout the mindset, right, it
really teaches your logicalmindset, which is super
important, and I think my wholeteam underneath me are all
engineers.
So I guess we all gravitatetogether in the way we think.

Gautham (09:56):
It's funny you say this because you know, as an
engineer, I too did not reallywant to be an engineer.
I always wanted to be amarketing professional, but,
coming from India, you've got totry being an engineer first, so
I get that.
I want to ask one more questionbefore I turn it back to Rich.
I was looking at your resumeand it's interesting that you
know.
I think around 2010 orsomething is when Tal Group

(10:18):
published their firstsustainability report.
Now I'm a sustainabilityresearcher myself 2010,
sustainability was not verypopular, especially around the
world, let alone in developingcountries.
So what made you lead thatinitiative?
What got you thinking aboutsustainability and doing good
for the planet, especially givenclothing does have a big role

(10:39):
to play in the environmentalstatus as it is?

Roger (10:42):
today.
I'm not going to take anycredit here.
I joined a company.
I joined in 2005 and thecompany DNA, when I joined
already, was trying to do goodfor the environment.
So if I go back to before that,in the 1990s, we opened a
factory in China and wedischarged, we use water in our

(11:04):
processing and we built awastewater treatment China and
we discharged, we use water inour processing and we built a
wastewater treatment plant fromday one.
So we were treating water inthe 1990s when no one else was
right, it wasn't a thing.
I calculated, added a dollarper piece.
For people outside industry adollar is not much, but people
inside industry a dollar is ahell of a lot of money.
Okay, but the cost per piece atthat time was a dollar extra to

(11:25):
process the water.
It's inbuilt to the company DNAbefore I arrived it's about,
you know leaving the place in abetter state than when you first
arrived.

Gautham (11:34):
So I have to ask you this, roger, sorry I have to
interrupt Now.
That's very unusual that acompany, especially a
manufacturing company, has thatin the DNA in the 1990s.
So what was it that caused thecompany to be so environmentally
focused, investing?
I mean, we are talking aboutpennies, you're talking about a
dollar, right, that's a lot ofmoney that impacts the margins.

(11:57):
So give us a little bit of thebackground of what drove the
company to be so sustainabilityoriented, even that in the 1990s
you know, I wasn't thereoriented even that in the 1990s.

Roger (12:05):
You know I wasn't there, obviously at that time.
But what I can tell you is whenI joined, my father was the CEO
, dr Harry Lee.
He came in and started runningthe company, I think in 1983.
And if you know him you knowthat he's very principled and

(12:25):
extremely clean with every partof the business, right no
shortcuts, no under table money,just everything's by the book.
And he's also a scientist,right, and he understands what
wastewater can do to environment.
So he's always been in everyaspect of the company driving
sustainability, whether it'staking care of the workers or
taking care of the environment.
That was really driven by him.
Now he took over in 1983, thecompany started in 1947.
So I don't know between 1947and 1983, whatever was already

(12:47):
drilled in or he started that.

Rich (12:49):
He definitely cleaned up a lot of minutes and talk about
the businesses that you're inand what your major I'd say

(13:10):
sources of revenue or your majorbusiness objective is?

Roger (13:13):
I guess it goes back to our core, which is manufacturing
.
I'll give you a quickbackground that people probably
don't know.
We started in 1947.
We started actually as a fabricmill.
So in our industry you've gotfabric mills that you knit or
weave.
Then you buy the fabric, cut itand sew it and then you ship it
.
So that's the garmentmanufacturing part.

(13:34):
We actually are today garmentmanufacturer, but we started in
the fabric mill in 1947 in HongKong and we grew and then we had
garment manufacturing.
We actually started makingeverything else around the
garment, which is buttons,thread, the potty bags, the
boxes.
At one point we even ownedshares in air cargo, because he
did a lot of air cargo back inthe days.

(13:54):
So we had like a hundreddifferent companies and in 1970s
we ran into a financialdifficulty when oil crisis came
and we basically, long storyshort, we diversified everything
and then we just kept thegarment manufacturing and that's
where my father took over 1983and started.
Just kept the garmentmanufacturing piece and that's
where my father took over in1983 and started just with the
garment manufacturing piece.
Everything else was diversifiedout for us to survive

(14:15):
financially.
So today we're known as one ofthe bigger garment manufacturers
in the world.
We're definitely not thebiggest, but one of the bigger.
We have been known up torecently as probably one of the
biggest dress shirt makers.
Up to recently as probably oneof the biggest dress shirt
makers we make.
The last numbers we looked atwas one out of every six dress
shirts sold in the US is made byus Dress shirts that retail for

(14:37):
over $50,.
60% of those are made by us.
So we focus on more the mid toupper end of the market.
In 2011, I restructured thecompany to move the dress shirts
into one of the divisions andwe actually have four divisions,
and actually the biggerdivision during COVID was our
casual side, so we alsomanufacture polo shirts.
So I think we make for 17 golfbrands today and we do hoodies.

(15:01):
We do a lot of casual wear.
The third division we do isouterwear.
So we used to be huge in doingouterwear in the seventies and
eighties.
It's a lot smaller now and inthe fourth division is made to
measure.
We do one piece at a time.
We custom make one piece at thetime in the production line,
which is very unusual for ourindustry.
Right, you're talking abouttypically, you want the bigger
orders.
You want 10 000 pieces in order.

(15:21):
You want 20 000, 100 000 pieces, but we also make one piece at
a time and we're pretty big inthat now too.
So we're really a manufacturer.
We buy the gun, we buy thefabric, we cut it, make it
according to the specs and thenwe ship it.
So we're known as as uh, one ofthe bigger manufacturers,
probably also known as one ofthe most expensive manufacturers
, because we do things to thebest of our ability and we don't

(15:43):
take shortcuts and you know, alot of processes in place and
that costs money.
So we're not cheap in what wedo, but we're super reliable.
So that's our main business.
Over the years we've addedauxiliary businesses around it.
A lot of it's around make tomeasure.
So in order for you to custommake clothing, you need to have
measurements.
So there are many differentways to take measurements, but

(16:05):
the most accurate way is notgoing to a tailor, because if
you go to 10 tailors they giveyou 10 different measurements.
It's not as simple as peoplethink in taking measurements.
So we have a computer visionsoftware company and hardware
company that creates 3D bodyscanning.
It used to be a booth, used tobe a physical booth.
You walk in and then you scan.
Now it's an app on the phonethat you can use.

(16:26):
The lenses on the phones haveimproved so much we can just use
that.
So we have a company doing that.
We have another brand actuallythat sells.
It's called Jay Hoban.
It's it's got a stylist aroundthe country that come to you and
they come and measure you oruse the app to take measurements
, and then the biggest part isthese stylists know your

(16:46):
wardrobe inside out, and menhate choosing how to style what
to wear.
What color Should I have apocket, not have a pocket?
What should the color of thebuttons be?
These stylists take thethinking out of that and help
you dress yourself in a way thatshows your character.
Where you want to be quiet or alittle bit loud Takes all the
guesswork and thinking out ofthat, and so we have a company

(17:08):
that sells men's custom clothingas well.
So we've added small businessesaround our core, which is still
the traditional garmentmanufacturing.

Gautham (17:19):
Roger, can I ask?
I'm a technology geek, so can Ijust ask a little bit more
about the body scanning and theefficacy of it, and what are the
challenges that you face, bothfrom a technology side and a
customer adoption side?
And lastly, the unit economics?
I'm not.
How does this work Like?
Are you, if you're able tospeak about the last one as well

(17:41):
?

Roger (17:41):
Back in the day.
So we started doing made tomeasure before I joined, so this
is a while back, I think it'searly 2000.
So I joined 2005.
I think 2002, we started doingthat and at that time we
expected that made to measurewas the way that consumers will
buy clothes in the future formany, many different reasons.
And we said what is the techaround that that you need?

(18:03):
And we said measurement isobviously one of the key things.
And how are you going to dothat?
And we felt that we had to scanthe body because tailors we
know, just have different waysof measuring.
And we also felt at that timethat if the more data you had
this is before today, where weall know data is super important
the more data you have, thebetter informed your decisions
are and the more data mining andstuff you can get out of there.

(18:24):
This is back in early 2000,right?
No one talked about datascience or anything like that,
but we felt that the more bodymeasurements we had, the better
our ability to fit consumers wasgoing to be.
And at that time the closestthing you had was, I think TC
Squared was an organization thathad 10,000 body scans or
measurements, and everyone inthe industry was using that and

(18:46):
we're like, wow, we can do a lotbetter than that.
We actually can.
People, which is simple in andout scan, then the next one.
So we created this companycalled sidestream, out of north
carolina, that focus on thattactic.
Basically, I think it's uh, theuse case is hard sometimes.
Ultimately it's not like tsayou walk through a scan and can
get measurement because you do.

(19:07):
I think most people don't knowthat when you actually measure
someone, you need to get down toan eighth of an inch is what
the tolerance is in makingclothes.
So that's part of the tech.
Now, if you're asking aboutmade to measure, we've been in
this for over 20 years.
The stats I can share is interms of shirts, dress shirts,
for example, woven dress shirtswe make over 600,000 pieces a
year.
When you add in polo shirts,pants, outerwear, suits, our

(19:33):
units are almost close to amillion units.
It's an area where mostmanufacturers try and don't
succeed, because you need a lotof perseverance.
You need to innovate in how youchange styles, because the
sewing machine is set up one wayand every product requires a
different setup.
So how do you do quick change?
So basically, we've spent yearsand just thinking about the

(19:55):
whole process and if you're ageek like me knows you know, in
the factory you will startreally thinking about how's the
factory working.
You know, hey, in bulk is verysimple.
Traditional manufacturingsimple.
You take a whole roll fabric,take it to the cutting table,
cut the whole roll and thenyou're done In the
made-to-measure.
You take a big roll of fabric.
You only cut what you need,which is typically two yards,

(20:15):
and then you send the whole rollback to the warehouse.
Just that logistical change issuper inefficient if you use the
traditional way.
So there's so many ways to dothis and we've been doing it for
a long time we haven't talkedabout it until recently because
I think we're far enough aheadof everyone else in the world in
how we do this that it'll takea while for people to catch up
to what we're doing.

Rich (20:36):
So I don't mind sharing what we're doing today From body
scanning and the sheer numberof measurements that you've
taken.
Has that impacted yourready-to-wear business and how
you look at size scales andsizing in general?

Roger (20:52):
So doing made-to-measure making clothes one piece at a
time has not impacted in termsof our ready-to-wear business,
in terms of volume.
The brands that really succeedin made-to-measure are not
traditional brands, and that'sdown to pure economics.
Traditional brands are set upwith big retail stores, a huge
warehouse distribution network.

(21:12):
Most often it's unionized, soit's expensive.
And when a traditional businesssays I want you to do made to
measure, you still have to payfor all the overhead.
Your warehouse, your retailstore that normally stores are
actually mini warehouses right,you have a lot of stock inside.
When you do made to measure,you have no stock.
You don't need a warehousebecause nothing is stored in the
United States.
Everything is made in thefactory on demand and sent over

(21:37):
as needed.
So if you take all that costout, it's actually a huge saving
.
So traditional manufacturers,when they do traditional P&L,
can't make it work.
So the ones that are making itwork today are the ones that
started from scratch at worktoday, are the ones that started
from scratch, doesn't have anyof that legacy network costs and
are really successful.
And are those brands takingbusiness away from traditional?
Not yet.
It's not at the scale yet thatit needs to, because the biggest

(21:59):
barrier is most men don't thinkabout buying custom right.
They think custom is out ofreach, cost-wise and it's not
easily accessible.
I truly believe that customwill be the first choice of any
consumer in the future, once itgets to scale.
And I do want the traditionalretailers to go and do make to
measure.
I want them to be successfulbecause the more people do it,

(22:19):
the more consumers will startthinking, oh, maybe I should
look at custom first beforegoing to a traditional place, so
that tipping point will come.
The question is just in whichyears are going to come.
This is fascinating.

Gautham (22:29):
So you believe that made to order is going to be the
future?
How do you dovetail it with theneed for people to have the
clothing in their hand yesterday, because I'm assuming this is
going to take a little bitlonger?
Right, I see the positives.
You're saving the environment.
There's a lot of cost savingsthere as well.
But how do you get the speed toget it into the hands of the

(22:53):
customer that a traditional,larger scale manufacturing can
achieve?

Roger (22:59):
I think Amazon with its two-day shipping, next-day
shipping, has changed a lot ofconsumer expectations.
But when you go and getsomething custom made, if I can
get it to you in the next hoursomething complex, not something
simple, right?
I'm not talking about taking amug and putting a logo on it,
something a lot more complex.
Do you think a lot of work hasbeen done to customize it for

(23:20):
you?
If you get it an hour versus inthree days?
You know we talked about suits,some brands saying, hey, if I
get my suit too quick to thecustomer, they think I didn't
really do anything special to it.
How can it be so fast?
So when it comes to custom,actually all consumers are
pretty okay to wait.
Now, our lead time is prettyshort I think one of the
shortest in industry.
We can get pretty much 100% ofour shirts out within three to

(23:45):
four working days.
Three to four Wow.
Now, if we got consistentvolume every day, if you got a
thousand pieces every day, I canget out in one day.
The reason why it takes longeris that we can't staff the
sewing lines to its peak,because if I get 2,000 today and
1,000 tomorrow, what do I dowith half my sewers, so we staff

(24:05):
it to roughly the upperquartile of need.
In actual fact, to get aproduct out, we can do it in a
day.
If we have consistent volume tomatch the capacity For suits,
we get it out in two weeks.
The fallacy of the whole thingis that we definitely save
retailers in the environmentfrom the point of view that you
don't need warehouse.
Transportation is a lot less.
The return rate is actually alot lower once you get it right

(24:28):
the first time.
You don't have the 30 pluspercent typical retail return
rate.
You have single digit returnrate because you really have to
fit right and they choose whatthey want, they choose the color
, they want style.
So it's super rare to getreturn once you have it right
the first time.
After the first time, youractual footprint, environmental
footprint, is quite low.
The only thing that drives itup is the effort that we have to

(24:50):
do to cut down the 30-day leadtime, to make it down to a three
or four-day lead time.
Now, once we get our modelperfected, we can actually move
it closer to onshore, closer tothe customer, because we're
still working automation.
We're working a lot of things.
Us is not great if you want toset up a 4,000, 5,000 people
factory in one location, andalso eventually we'll get there
into many factories that do iton demand.

(25:12):
But if you think about theamount of waste that a brand
goes through right Every season,why is there a discount every
season?
Because they got stuff theycan't sell so they'd have to
discount it, and all that iswaste and it's unnecessary waste
, because people are just buyingbecause it's cheap, not because
they need it, whereas inmade-to-measure you're only
selling people what they reallywant and there's rarely any
discount in the season becausethere's no, you've got nothing

(25:33):
to discount in the US.
The worst case is you've boughtsome fabric that's not been
made yet in a factory thatsomeone else can buy off you and
reuse.
So you know there's still adebate which one's more
environmental friendly.
But I would say long-term termsof cutting waste out made to
measure is the way to go.
Number one.
Number two Rich.
I'm not sure if you've done apodcast in startup businesses,

(25:53):
right?
Most people say, hey, I starteda business.
It's growing 100% a year.
I say that's great.
Where's your money coming from?
What do you mean money?
I'm making money.
I said if you double yourbusiness every year the working

(26:14):
capital you need, because youbuy the goods from the supplier,
you pay the supply before yousell it to the consumer, so your
working capital just getsbigger and bigger.
So if you don't have, you mayhave a magical product, but if
you don't have the workingcapital to support it, you can
never grow.
You're going to get intofinancial trouble and eventually
they do Once they feel like, ohyeah, that's true, I never
thought about that.
In the made to measure businessyou take the money from the
consumer first it's positiveworking capital before you pay
the supplier.
You take the money when youtake the order and then you

(26:34):
place the order and it's made ondemand, so it's a.
You know you always want toinvest in businesses that are
positive cash flow, not negativecash right, positive working
capital, so it's negative.
So this whole, the wholeeconomics works if you really
think for it no end of seasondiscounts, no huge retail
warehouse networks, no overheadcosts and you get the money

(26:54):
before you pay the supplier.
It works if you really thinkthrough it.

Rich (26:57):
Are there lessons that you've learned either from a
technology or manufacturingprocess in the custom world that
you've been able to leverageinto your ready to wear world?

Roger (27:10):
Yes, for sure, In manufacturing you lose the most
efficiency when you changestyles.
Okay, so you're manufacturingat 80% efficiency and then a new
style comes, everything isretweaked and then efficiency
drops down to 20 and the name ofthe game is how fast can I get
it back to 80.
In made to measure, we changestyle every minute.
Right, Every product coming outis different.
So we've done a lot of I don'tknow you call it, you know

(27:34):
changes to the setup, themachinery, the thinking of how
we do things so that we canchange style without losing a
lot of efficiency.
And made to measure.
Well, so we adopt some of thosefor sure back into the
ready-to-wear manufacturingprocess so that we can change
style faster and have lessefficiency loss.

Rich (27:50):
So I have to ask the question.
I tuned in the other night to aNetflix documentary on
overconsumption and I wassurprised that the CEO of a
leading manufacturer wasaddressing overconsumption.
What was your thought processbehind that?

Roger (28:07):
It wasn't very complicated.
The production house approachedme and said are you interested
in doing something like this?
We want to talk about waste inthe industry not just our
industry, in multiple industries, and I was, like sure, happy to
contribute because we've beentalking about waste in our
industry for a very long time.
We've been talking about the1.5 degrees, about all the

(28:30):
metrics we want to hit as anindustry.
We haven't hit any singlemetric that we as an industry
want to hit.
Change is very slow in ourindustry and people will say,
well, isn't that going to hurtyour business?
By speaking out, no, we allknow what the reality is and I'm
just speaking the truth and ourcustomers understand that it is

(28:51):
the truth.
They still need a reliablemanufacturer that can produce
high quality work.
They're not going to leave us.
Because I speak out and I feltthe more that consumers can know
what really happens and overconsumption and really think
about it.
That will be a step forward.
It won't change the industry,but it'll be a step forward in
making people think twice beforebuying stuff they don't really

(29:12):
need.

Gautham (29:12):
I love that point and I always use the word responsible
consumption, and I teachmarketing, but I teach my
students think about responsibleconsumption and when it comes
to clothing, you know studentslove to be fashion forward, so I
always say high quality,repairable products with the
least waste right, and it kindof aligns with what you're doing
, roger.
I want to ask one question,after which I promise I'll keep

(29:32):
quiet, which is that I'm asustainability researcher.
Clothing, as you know, a paddlein general is a major
contributor to the environmentalcrisis that we have.
What kind of innovations areyou dealing when it comes to
being at the forefront of makingthis a more sustainable
reducing waste, for sure, waterrecycling.

(29:55):
Is there anything else thatyou're doing that you are
willing to share with us?

Roger (30:00):
I think it's nothing where you haven't heard of
before.
We started, as you said,producing the sustainability
report in 2010, but we actuallystarted internally on reduction
of water and energy in 2007.
So we had set ourselvesinternal targets in 2007.
We started when we built ourfactory after.
The next factory that we builtafter that was in Vietnam.

(30:23):
We decided to adopt the US LEEDlead US Building Council's
standard of building factoriesand in Vietnam our two factories
we have today are both LEEDGold certified and the first one
that was LEED Gold certifiedwas the highest rated factory in
the whole of Vietnam at thattime.
So we've always set ourselvesstandards on how to measure

(30:45):
ourselves, to see whether we'reactually making an impact.
So we did simple things likethat low-hanging fruits and that
just you know we reduced waste.
So lunchtime we turn offmachines, we look at do we
actually need lightingeverywhere?
You know lots of things.
And then we started measuringthe power that the sewing
machine uses and can we get moreefficient sewing machines and
that kind of thing.

(31:05):
So we started looking at that along time ago.
The other thing at that timethat we looked at was solar
panels traditional solar panels.
It didn't make sense.
The payback period was 20 yearsat that time.
Now it's a lot shorter, so itmakes sense now.
Water consumption is a lotshorter, so it makes sense now.
Water consumption is a bigthing, so we've looked at
technology to use less water inour processing.
So nothing really that youhaven't heard of before.
The real thing is focus anddetermination to make a goal.

(31:28):
So we actually have put out ourneck out there by committing to
carbon neutral by 2050 and wejoined we're one of the few
people that have joined the UNfashion charter to commit to
that and actually the moremidterm, short-term goes 2030,
we need to reduce by roughly 50%.

(31:49):
That's how, because there isn'tenough technology out there to
help us get there yet, which iswhy I'm smiling.

Gautham (31:55):
Yeah, that was very hard, ambitious goal.
I love that.
I know I said last question,but I got to have one more
follow-up question.
Saving the planet, doing goodfor the planet, requires
collaborative effort, right?
You're a manufacturer.
If you look further upstream,how do you look at suppliers to
you?
Are you trying to influencethem, are you trying to ensure

(32:17):
the sourcing is correct and soforth?
How do you deal with that?
Like, the traceability of thesesupply chains is really hard,
right?

Roger (32:24):
Definitely very hard.
I mean, we have over a thousandsuppliers, it's complex.

Gautham (32:30):
Sorry to ask you there, but the suppliers, are they
from around the world or arethey more?

Roger (32:36):
From Asia, mainly from Asia, some from Europe, but
mainly from Asia.
We just don't.
We simply don't have themanpower to go and patrol
everything.
We're getting better.
I think brands are gettingbetter, we're getting better.
And saying to the suppliersbecause the focus has always
been on us, the garmentmanufacturer, not on the
upstream in terms of the rawmaterial suppliers, the person
who makes the fabric, thebuttons, the thread no one's

(33:01):
really focused on that.
But actually there's a lot ofenergy being used there.
Even growing the cotton,there's a lot of water.
So it's finally come to thisand it's what you call scope one
, two, three.
So we're now looking at abroader perspective, not just
within our four walls.
We're looking at upstream.
So I think the measurements arecoming in place.
The regulations, the brandsetting, standards are coming
into place.
So, yeah, it's super difficultbecause there's too many

(33:22):
suppliers, there are too manycomponents that make a garment.
People don't realize thatthere's a lot of components that
make a garment, so it is hardto patrol, the cost is super
high, so it's not affordable tomanage.
But I think rules are gettingin place, standards are putting
in place, so it will get better.
I would say the biggest driverto change at this point is going
to have to be regulation.

(33:42):
When governments set regulation, it will level the playing
field for all manufacturers andwe just have to do it.
We've always been doing aheadof everyone else, but we don't
get recognized from that pointof view.

Gautham (33:58):
You're talking about cross-border regulation that is
mind-bogglingly challenging toget through, and then, of course
, enforcement becomes an equallytough challenge.
I mean, sustainability is a hotspace for me, so thank you for
sharing your perspective.

Rich (34:11):
So at some point in the podcast we will often ask you to
think about a moment of failure.
I actually I'll leave thatquestion out there, but I'm
going to start with over thetenure of being CEO of Tal.
What's the one thing you'remost proud of?
I think it's on the people side.

Roger (34:32):
When I joined the organization, we were known for
our product, our technicalprocesses, our quality, but we
had no focus.
We didn't really focus onpeople, in that we weren't
developing next generation.
We didn't have a systematic way.
We had leaders in place thatgrew up in a single function so
either manufacturing the wholelife or sales the whole life,

(34:52):
and didn't really know otherparts of the business.
So I think the biggest impactthat I've made is changing the
culture of the people in termsof how they think.
Every time we think about notjust their function.
It's how to think holistically,and in order to do that, it
takes many, many years ofeducation, upgrading, both

(35:13):
bringing in people from outsidewho have different experiences,
and also promoting people whomove in.
So I would say my job today is10 times or even 100 times
easier because the team below isfar more competent than the
team I had below 10 years agoand I took over 12, 13 years ago
now running the company.

(35:33):
So at that time it was just alot of work on giving directions
, so very directive type ofleadership.
To now, where I don't have tobe directive 99% of the time, it
was only that 1% of the time Ijump in and I see that hey,
we're going off track.
Then I pull them back.
The teams below me, thepresidents of organizations, the

(35:55):
COO, really work well together,to the point that customers see
it so.
Normally when you go into atraditional manufacturer you
always meet the same one guy allthe time.
He talks, all the time.
He tells you everything.
He'll tell the factory is superdirective.
That's how they do it.
But the generations are gettingolder and the brands are
thinking what happens if thisguy retires tomorrow or
something happens to his health?

(36:15):
We are risk mitigating.
We don't have any riskmitigation.
Whereas retires tomorrow orsomething happens to his health,
we are risk mitigating.
We have, we don't have any riskmitigation.
Whereas when it comes to ourfactories, the people that they
talk to are multiple levels andmultiple different people.
So they know that if somethinghappens to one person, including
myself, they can still dobusiness with us.
There's no risk.
So I think customers actuallysaying we need to move to town,
or actually part of the businessto town because the people
working with, is not sustainable.

(36:37):
It's too much risk in eggs inone basket.
They rely on one person and ifsomething happens we're in deep
trouble.
So I think it's really stoodthe test of time is our people.
How we've grown.
Our people empower our peoplegot them to think a lot, a lot
broader, a lot deeper, andcustomers see that too and
appreciate that.
It's allowed us to move forwardfaster, because even though you
might be one of the leaders inthe industry, if you don't

(36:58):
continue to innovate and improveyourself, you won't be the
leader in the future.
So how do you do?
That is having the best people.

Rich (37:04):
So it's interesting that you bring that up, because we
obviously spend a lot of time onthe podcast talking about
technology, whether it's AI, orwhether it's automation or
technology in general.
One of our primary audiences,or students.
They will ask the same questionwhat's going to happen to the
jobs with technology andautomation?
The jobs aren't going to bethere.
And we've spent time talkingabout technology and automation

(37:27):
and now you're talking aboutpeople.
How important do people becomeas we look five, 10 years down
the road?

Roger (37:34):
I think it's equally important as today.
No change.
People have said the same thing.
Right, ai, I know, is a hugechange for everyone in every
industry.
So was Excel.
When Excel started, everythingwas manly done in the books and
Excel came and said oh my God,my job's disappearing.
And then you can repeat thatexample many, many times where

(37:55):
people thought their jobs aredisappearing because technology
takes over and makes things alot more efficient.
You don't need people,including automation right, a
lot of industries haveautomation, but you still need
people.
There is one scary fact that Iunderstand is that the AIs, the
computers that are coming up,are going to be smarter than
people for the first time.
That's the scary part.
But people are still going toinnovate.
We're super smart as humanbeings to figure out what we can

(38:15):
do.
It just accelerates theprogress of every industry.
But AI is just a tool, and whatare we going to do as humans to
use those tools to the mostefficient way?
And I'm not worried about humanbeings losing jobs.
The one thing I would say isthe hardest part of leadership
is not creating a strategy.
People think, oh my God, theycreate this strategy.
It's amazing.
It's super complex, all thatstuff you can have the best

(38:37):
strategy in the world, but ifyou don't have the people to
execute it, what's the point?
It's not.
The most complex thing inleadership is managing people.
That's the hardest thing.
It takes the longest time tolearn.
Everyone's different, so youcan't use one strategy to manage
the team.

Gautham (38:49):
I love that.
As a professor, I've beenteaching analytics and
technology for 10 years.
I always say that it alwaysboils down to people and
leadership.
In our podcast, we have a thirdsection, which is about advice.
Right, you hopped on the ideaof importance of people and you
talked about how long it tookyou to build the team that you
wanted.
What is it that you look for inpeople?

(39:10):
Give our audience some insightsinto what are the underrated
skills that you want to see inyour team members.

Roger (39:18):
It's pretty simple for me Curiosity Is someone curious
about everything around them,because it doesn't matter how
old you are, whether you're ateenager, whether you're in your
30s, whether you're in your 80s.
If you have the innatecuriosity in you, you're willing
to learn, you're willing toknow more, you want to know more
.
You only get better withknowledge.

(39:39):
So if people are curious,naturally they will do better in
life.
People who are content anddon't feel like they don't need
to learn Okay, there's somebosses out there.
I know everything in the world.
Why do I need to learn?
They're going to be stagnant atsome point and something's
going to catch up, so it doesn'tmatter what level you are.
Curiosity, to me, is one of themost important things that's
never really talked about.

Gautham (39:58):
In fact, it's talked about a lot in this podcast.
I was just texting with Richsaying that that's the number
one thing that we've said, andas a professor, I also let me
ask you this like in a worldwhere things change very fast,
where instant gratification iskind of the norm, how do you
inspire?
I heard you kind of talk aboutcuriosity as a trait.
You either have it or you don't.

(40:19):
Is there some way we caninculcate curiosity into our
generations, especially givenall the technological tools
we're going to have moving?

Roger (40:28):
forward.
So I've got three young kids,12 to 18.
They're very much social mediafocused.
They learn everything fromsocial media.
So in some ways they're curiousabout the world by learning.
You have to be curious aboutevery aspect of the world, not
just what's on social media.
So then it applies to work.
So it's something we have toteach them.
To say you're curious in thesocial media, you learn a lot,

(40:50):
which is great.
Are you learning about otheraspects of your daily life, like
you're taking Uber every day?
How does Uber work?
Do you ever thought about that?
You thought do you think itjust magically happens?
It doesn't.
And if you start thinking abouthow Uber works, you're going to
think about hmm, actually, youknow, what really bugs me about
Uber is that I can't get areliable car, or I can't get
reliable this, I can't reallyreliable that.
Then you start and if you startthinking about, you're curious

(41:16):
about how it works and you'recurious about can I do a better
job?
That's how you get better thananyone else is you keep thinking
through those things.

Rich (41:23):
So obviously encouraging students today to be curious and
to understand how things workwould be important.
What advice were you given thatstuck with you?

Roger (41:34):
So I still remember to this day that my father was
reading Business Week magazineand he said read this article.
I said OK, and it was on Amazon, the warehouse they're setting
up.
How many warehouses are settingup across the US?
So I read it and it says whatdo you think?
I cannot remember what I saidto him.
The only thing I remember wasthat, no, you don't get the long

(41:55):
term vision of what they'retrying to do, because I looked
at a very short-term narrow,just based on the facts, without
really thinking about what'sthe long-term implication of
that.
And that still stuck to me washmm, I thought I was semi-smart,
I thought I could get it, butobviously I completely missed it
.
So that taught me a lesson thatI really need to think a lot
broader and deeper and ask morequestions and really challenge

(42:17):
my own thinking when I'mabsorbing stuff, reading stuff.
I think that was about 25 to 30years ago.
This is an infancy of Amazon.

Rich (42:25):
So, before we move into the rapid fire round, where do
you find your inspirationpersonally?

Roger (42:33):
I guess through work, if I get bored at something, I
really get bored, and then I tryand figure out who else in the
company can do it, because whenI'm bored it's no good, I can't
move things forward, and I thinkall of us have gotten through
stages where you get bored incertain things.
I have the luxury of being aCEO, so if I'm really bored with
something, I'll find someone onmy team that can take it on for

(42:54):
me, because it's hard to workon something that's boring.
Now, not everyone has thatluxury.
Obviously, when you start offand I've been through the grind
like everyone else I had tolearn from the beginning and do
the boring stuff, because thatteaches you fundamentals and
that's basics.
That's different than being inmy role, because as a CEO,
you've always got to be inspired.
You've got to think forward,you've got to think what's next
To me inspiration comes with howdo I make things better?

Gautham (43:16):
So you said curiosity is a good trait to have, so
Diversity is a good trait tohave.
And I just heard you say youthink about what you can do
better.
So I have to ask this questionbut what is the one thing that
you would like to do bettertoday in the apparel?

Roger (43:28):
industry.
I mean, sustainability isnumber one.
There's no close number two.
We've got to fix our waste.
We've got to fix the energyconsumption.
We've got a lot to fix.
It's all around sustainability.
That, me, is number one thatneeds to change our industry.
But if you allow me, I want toswitch and go back to the

(43:49):
example I talked about and sharewith you openly what we're
doing.
So every year we go to Harvard.
It's interesting the coursesthat we take.
The reason I like to go backevery year is typically, if you
do an OPM, apm course, you gothree months intense.
You learn whatever's current.
We get to learn the currentbusiness cases, case studies
every year.
So everything time it goes ismostly new stuff that's just
published and obviously AI isone of the newest things.

(44:11):
So they started challenging usthree years ago how do you
incorporate AI into yourbusiness?
And then it was like there wasa key question how are you going
to change your industry usingAI?
And something just magicallypopped into my head.
It used to be one hour for thewhole week on AI.
Then it became two hours, thenit became three hours and then
they taught us how to usedifferent chat GPT tools.

(44:32):
There are a few different toolsout there to try and solve a
question and taught us how to dothat.
So there's a lot of things.
And then that one question ishow do you use AI to change the
industry?
And I can share openly whatwe're doing right now.
We're doing many things, butthis one thing I really want to
implement to change the industry, which is a very boring task
but a necessary task it'sinspection, quality inspection.

(44:56):
There are a lot of auditingfirms out there that make
billions in revenue in justdoing third-party audits on
manufacturers like us.
I want to develop a computervision tool for town to start
with.
And people say oh, you must bedoing that to save money on
number of QCs.
You need right Qualityinspectors you need.
Answer is no for sure, becauselabor is cheap, relatively

(45:16):
speaking, where we manufacture.
So it's not that it's I want tohave, because I don't think
people realize to inspect adress shirt.
People don't realize how manyminutes it takes.
They say I said how long?
Oh, 30 seconds.
Now, if you really inspecteverything, it's three, four,
five minutes and people missthings.
Right, human beings are stillusing their eyes.
They still miss things.

(45:37):
So if you want to check aniPhone.
I'm not an iPhone manufacturer.
I'm guessing you will plug itinto some sort of machine and
run different algorithms, testdifferent things, get the
responses.
It's not a human being lookingat a phone itself and saying
there's a past inspection.
That's not how you inspect aniPhone.
But when you inspect a garment,that's how you inspect a garment
.
It's purely using human eyesand you're going to miss a lot
of things and you don't have thetime to inspect 100% of your

(45:59):
garments.
The customers don't pay usenough money to allow us time to
inspect every single garment.
We do 15 minute garments a year.
Think about how many minutestimes three minutes and how many
minutes that will cost.
We're not paid that.
We're not paid enough to beable to do 100%.
So we do a random inspectionusing an AKL algorithm.
So if a camera can look at theproduct real time and tell you

(46:22):
straight away where the defectsare, that saves a lot of time.
Number one.
Number two I can do it for 100of diamonds.
Number three I can provide thatdata transparently to the
customer so they know thequality they're getting and they
know what the final inspectionwas.
I can show them early oninspection in the before end of
the line.
I can show them.
End of the line I.
I can do open box audits, whichis common in our industry,

(46:43):
random opening box.
I can do all that with acomputer system that they know
they trust it's real data, it'snot tampered with, and then
hopefully our customers willlove that system, the data, and
limit all the third-partyinspections for us.
And then they're going to say,can I use the same technology
for my other suppliers?
I'm going to say yeah, sure.
I'm going to say yeah, sure,I'm not going to charge you guys
, I'm going to try and get athird-party company to do it.
I don't want to make money offthis.

(47:03):
What I want to do is I want tohelp the industry standardize on
what is quality.
That's my goal, using AI, usinga tool that we can't do
ourselves, but use computervision.
Ai can do.

Gautham (47:12):
I love it.
I can see a lot of things right.
It also becomes a platform.
I am going to ask one questionon this.
I've talked with quite a fewpeople who implement computer
vision.
Clothing and computer visionisn't that harder to do, in
contrast to cans in the grocerystore.

Roger (47:30):
Absolutely Much harder, but I think the technology is
getting much better.
The algorithms are gettingbetter.
Capturing the images is one ofthe things.
The lenses are getting a lotbetter, a lot cheaper.
We've now got two differentcompanies outside companies
running their system in ourfactory to test.
So, basically, what's happeningin the AI industry is there's a

(47:52):
lot of companies using AI.
What, fundamentally, what rawmaterial do these companies need
to make their product better?
Is data.
So we're opening up our dataset, which is our garments, to
them to use their technology inour factory, to give them, for
free, our data set to test andmake their products better.
I have two, maybe I have threecompanies.

(48:12):
I want it to be a two horse,three horse race.
I want the best product to comeout, so I'm giving them data.

Rich (48:17):
That's one of the big things AI companies don't have
the access to industryspecificspecific data and we're
opening that up to AI companiesto use and once we can marry it
together, it will.

(48:38):
Are you employing it simplybecause you're trying to cut
costs and be the cheapest, orare you employing the technology
to improve quality, improvetransparency?
One probably will cost jobs andprobably will cost your brand,
and the other actually canproduce a better product and
likely save or create jobs inthe process.

Roger (49:00):
So if we can force the industry to create a better
product, the product should alsobe more sustainable, more
durable.

Rich (49:07):
We rapid fire round.
We have three questions.
I'm going to start, gotham willjump in the middle and then
either give you the third orI'll jump in with the third.
You're hosting a dinner party.
You can invite three guests.
It can be living, dead, real,fictitious.
Who are they?

Roger (49:23):
So my three, maybe one or two, I don't know what people
will think, but I'll tell youwhat I honestly think Off the
top of my head.
Bill Clinton I've met him oncebriefly, for like three minutes.
He's super engaging, reallyinterested in what you're
talking about and will tell youhow he thinks and mean and he
has a lot of experience, rightand from different aspects of
his life.
I know he won't sugarcoatthings, he would tell it as it

(49:46):
is and he's just engaging.
He really cares about yourquestions.
Number two would be Steve Jobs.
I admire the simplicity of hisproducts.
I think everything that we usein the world should be easier to
use, simpler to use, and he wasable to figure out what we
needed before we felt we neededit.

(50:08):
Typically, people think aboutoh, how do we make this product
better?
Oh, what's the consumer askingfor?
He wasn't.
He was way ahead of what theconsumer was asking for and just
to pick his brain about how hethinks about things will, I
think, help a lot.
Brain about how he thinks aboutthings will, I think, help a
lot.
If more people like him, wewould create products a lot
better and faster than today.
The third one you guys maylaugh at this Taylor Swift.

(50:31):
I attended her concert with mydaughters because my daughters
wanted to go see her inSingapore.
She was here for six nights.
It wasn't about her music, itwas about the show she put on
and she, as far as I know, hassold over a billion dollars in
tickets.
It's a billion dollar company.
How did she create this?
How do you create somethingfrom nothing?
I mean, obviously she had a fanbase, but how do you create

(50:53):
this big thing suddenly to abillion plus dollars in ticket
sales, which is a billion dollarcompany and get everything to
work?
It's a three-hour concert, right?
Most concerts are nowhere nearthree hours and you go out at
the end of three hours and don'tthink it's three hours.
You're captivated every momentof the concert.
So how do you get the crew tothink about the script?
How do you put it all together?

(51:15):
I mean, it's running a billiondollar business and at her age
she's pretty young.
She probably has a big supportteam behind her.
I know her parents play a bigrole, but still putting it all
together it's not an easy thingto do.
So it's just curious, right?
It's a completely differentindustry and she's made it big.
And how did she make it big?
I don't think it's just fromher songs.

Rich (51:33):
She's built a community and the irony with what we've
been talking about today is sheputs quality behind it and she
invests in the community and inthe people that support her.

Roger (51:43):
So it kind of aligns with the same values that you've
been talking about, but I'm notpart of her community and I'm
still interested in attendingher concert, right, I mean, and
I'm way older than her targetaudience.
But I just wanted to see whatthe whole thing was about and it
exceeded my expectations.

Gautham (51:59):
I had to close the door so that my daughter and wife
did not hear that you heardTaylor Swift concert, but no,
it's hard act to follow, roger.
But I'm gonna ask you the nextquestion.
I'm a foodie, so what's yourgo-to meal?
What's your favorite meal?

Roger (52:14):
Okay, my go-to food is chocolate.
I love dark chocolate.
Okay, love, love, love darkchocolate, but that doesn't help
with my weight control.
My favorite meal probablyJapanese.
I like Japanese food in generalit's healthy, it's clean, it's
tasty, simple, fresh ingredients.
So that would be probably mygo-to cuisine.

Rich (52:34):
All right, so I will close it out.
You've traveled quite a bit.
You have the ability totransport yourself
instantaneously to anywhere inthe world for 24 hours.
Where are you going?

Roger (52:45):
As you said, I've managed to travel the world.
It's a hard question to pickone place.
I would choose somewhere whereit just takes a long time to get
to, because it just takes solong.
It takes more than 24 hours toget to some places.
Right, I've been to Antarcticahard to get to, just amazing
nature.
So I would think everythingcomes down to nature.
I really appreciate pure naturewhere no human has interrupted

(53:07):
it or man-made things.
That just changes the way it is.
So Antarctica, to see the rawnature.
I just came back from Finlandwhere we saw northern mites, but
it's hit and miss.
So if I can find a spot asnorth as possible to go see
northern mites, but it's hit andmiss, so if I can find a spot
as north as possible to go seenorthern mites.
So you know just now, it's mucheasier than traveling, hoping
one night you'll see it.

(53:28):
Or to someone that bora bora,who I've never been because it's
too hard to get to.
So I would just choosesomewhere that's super hard to
get to.
It opens up your mind.
It's kind of like meditation,you know.
You think about the wonders ofthe nature and just meditates in
mind and brings it down to apeaceful level.
So any of those places I wouldsay I will be really happy to be
transported to.

Rich (53:46):
It is a very logical and inspirational perspective to
have on travel, and I can attestto the Northern Lights.
My wife and I went to Icelandand took a couple of trips to
try and find the elusiveNorthern Lights.
We ended up seeing them on theplane.
Roger, thank you very much forjoining us today.
This has been a fantasticconversation.

(54:06):
I can't wait to share it withour audience.
We hope to have you back.
Maybe do a round table onsustainability, as this is a
topic that's come up severaltimes, and I think Gautham it'll
keep coming up and it shouldkeep coming up.
So, thank you, thank you verymuch.

Roger (54:22):
Appreciate it, Thank you very much, appreciate it.