Podcasts about john it

Ever wonder what other people talk about with their financial advisors? A new survey of nearly 400 experienced advisors reveals the biggest concerns, challenges, and financial goals their clients are facing today. From retirement planning to healthcare costs to working longer than expected, we're breaking down the key takeaways and how they compare to what we see in our own client conversations.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.     Marc: Ever wonder what people are talking about with their financial advisors? Well this week on the show we're going to discuss a new survey of nearly 400 experienced advisors revealing the biggest concerns, challenges, and financial goals that their clients are facing. We'll see how that compares with what the guys see here on the show. Let's get into it this week on Retirement Planning - Redefined.   Welcome to the podcast, everybody. Thanks for hanging out with John and Nick and myself as we talk investing, finance and retirement. And guys, we're going to share this survey. We'll put a link into the show descriptions as well for folks that want to check it out, but want to run some of this information past you guys and see does that correlate with what you're seeing, do you think it's accurate, not accurate, and just spitball and talk a little bit about some of the stuff out here.   The survey was done of nearly 400 experienced advisors all with around 20 years or more of a business, practicing business, so interesting. They didn't really say exactly the age bracket of all the people they were talking to, so there could be some folks that are not necessarily retirement age. They could be younger as well as older, but I want to run down some of this stuff and just get your guys' take on it.   How you doing this week, John?   John: I'm doing well. Daylight savings is messing with me a little bit, but I'm adjusting pretty well. And one of my kids, actually both my kids, they're testing for an honor belt in karate.   Marc: Oh, nice.   John: So they're excited.   Marc: They're going to whoop on you. Be careful.   John: It's funny you say that. They're running around the house kicking me now. It's like I wanted to get them into some self-defense stuff, but now I'm getting kicked.   Marc: So now you got to walk around with some pads on.   John: Pretty much.   Marc: Make sure you're not getting beat up too much. Very cool. Well watch the shins, man. They'll get you in the shins.   Nick, how you doing, buddy?   Nick: Good. We're staying busy.   Marc: He's like, "Good." Well, let's break this down a little bit, guys.   John: That's the sound of a guy that's in the middle of planning a wedding.   Marc: Right? That's what I was just thinking. He's like, "I got to make another decision. I don't want to make a decision." Let's jump into this and we'll see if we can make this easy for you this week, Nick.   So seeking out a financial advisor, the first part of this survey, advisors in the survey said 52% of their clients have sought out financial advisors to help with the retirement planning. About 34% surveyed were just looking for somebody to build wealth with. And in an era where everybody can call themselves a financial advisor, does that strike you as interesting? What do you guys think about that, 52% looking for retirement planning versus 34 just looking for some sort of wealth building, whoever wants to start?   John: Yeah, those numbers seem accurate to me. Well, I guess I'm a little surprised it's not more looking for help with retirement planning.   Marc: Okay.   John: I'd say the majority of our clients are retirement planning based, "Hey, I want to make sure my plan's good. I want to make sure I don't outlive my money." As far as building wealth, that does come up quite a bit, and Nick will jump in as well, but I'd say most of our clients are looking for retirement planning and just making sure they're on track and making sure that they're making the right decisions.   Marc: And it's two different mindsets too, right, Nick? I mean, so you need to decide what it is that you're looking for. I mean, not to say that you couldn't work with a retirement planner who also can help you with some of the wealth building, but it is a different skillset as well. If you're just looking for someone only to help you build the wealth, that's a little bit easier, I would think.   Nick: Yeah, and I would almost, if I were to say maybe put that in other words, we talk with people at the three phases of money as far as their life goes are accumulation or growth, distribution, taking their money in retirement and then transfer when they leave money. And so I would say from that initial, that wealth building, that's most likely accumulation focused. And because so many people accumulate their money while working in their 401(k)s and that kind of thing, I think it tends to be a little bit of a different conversation and it's those people that as you get closer to retirement. So without having ages, it does make it, the numbers are interesting, and I agree with John, I would've thought maybe it'd be a little bit higher from the standpoint of the retirement planning side, but-   Marc: Well, I mean, if you're just trying to grow the money, again the market's been, obviously we haven't had a prolonged downturn, and it's been choppy here lately, but we haven't had a prolonged downturn since '08, '09, so there's a lot of information out there about saying it's a little bit easier to build the wealth. But the preservation stage, which retirement is a little bit more complicated. There's more things going on than just the portfolio.   But with that in mind, check this out. Over half of the survey of financial advisors said the average client asset minimum was 760,000. I found that to be good. I know different areas are going to be more or less depending on the economic state of the area, but when you often hear that people aren't doing a very good job saving for their retirement future, three quarters of a million dollars is not bad.   Nick: It's definitely interesting to see the numbers and how they've changed over the last five to seven years where, and you mentioned it earlier where we've had a long prolonged period of time with the market going up, and so there's quite a bit of people meeting with us or ending up with more money than they had thought that they would or that sort of thing. There's a little bit of concern with that that only lasts for so long and that there's some correction and all that kind of stuff to happen. But absolutely, definitely that puts most people in the wheelhouse of where they need to be to have a successful retirement.   Marc: I mean, it's not bad. John, do you guys have a minimum? I mean, I know different advisor firms do different things. You can't service everybody. There's only so many hours in a day. So you'll hear something where somebody says, "Well, we work with people with 250,000 who have saved or more in assets," or some or a million or whatever. Do you guys have a breakdown?   Nick: We don't have a set minimum that we advertise or market.   Marc: Okay.   Nick: I would say that the majority of the people that meet with us tend to have what many institutions have as their minimum. So in other words, a lot of places will tell people, like you referred to that, they're looking to work with clients that have 250,000 or more just from an efficiency standpoint of trying to make sure that they can service their clients and that sort of thing, and so we end up above that with most clients. But the reality is, is that the conversations that we have with clients are really we don't keep that rule set in stone because for us, it's more of a relationship-based.   Marc: Individually based kind of thing? Okay.   Nick: Yeah, and really it's something we're looking for people that are serious about planning. I would say if you were to draw a line between what we were talking about earlier where a growth or retirement planning in a more broadly focused strategy, so they're focused on that. They're serious about it. We reference like, "Hey, we don't want to convince you that you needed an advisor. We want you to know that you need one and we want to interview for the job," kind of concept.   Marc: No, that makes sense because I mean if you're giving suggestions and someone's not willing to take them, you're just wasting each other's time versus... Yeah.   Nick: Exactly, and we found that that'll waste more time than in theory working with somebody that maybe isn't where they're going to be yet. And also-   Marc: It needs to be a reciprocal relationship.   Nick: For sure. Communication's super important for us because we've also found that we've had people come in that maybe are under that 250, but their parents are wealthy and they ended up being a teacher or something that maybe didn't allow them to save as much money as some sorts of jobs, and they're going to inherit money and they need assistance that way. So I'd say we're pretty comfortable with our process and how we approach that sort of thing and really look for it on a relationship basis, communication basis, and how we all get along.   Marc: That makes sense. And it's got to be a two-way street. I mean, when we do the podcast, it's not designed to turn every listener into a client if they're not already a client, but it is designed to say, "Hey, if it's the right relationship field going both ways, then we're happy to help if we can." That's pretty cool. So that's a good way of looking at that.   John, check out some of these top concerns. Let me know what you think here. So no surprise, number one, outliving their assets, 38% of the people surveyed. That's pretty much always number one, right? Outliving your money.   John: Yeah.   Marc: 31%, generating reliable income streams, a pretty high number as well.   John: Yes.   Marc: Okay. Then it drops off to a pretty stark, down to 12% for a future stock market crash. Now with some context here, this survey was completed at the end of last year, so it was December of '24. Do you think that number's gone up recently?   John: I would willing to bet that number's gone up. I think we were talking about the market, the last real big downturn was '08, and I think in the last 10 years, we've only had two years of the market being down, the S&P 500. I think it was, what, '22 and 2014, I believe.   Nick: I'd almost say that's a leading indicator that there's going to be, it's one of those things. Once people get that comfortable, that's usually when it comes.   Marc: I mean, it's been a while, right? So because nobody's worried about it whenever it's riding high. We only seem to worry about it whenever we're in the middle of it falling a little bit. But the one that really surprises me is all the way down to 8% for healthcare costs. Now if you guys are focused more on helping people with retirement planning and strategies, that to me, again depending on the ages of the people that answered this survey, healthcare costs at 8% seems awfully low because it's pretty costly, and we need to be having those conversations when we're, especially as we're getting older.   John: Yeah, for sure. This one, it is very important, and I think it's same thing we're talking about the stock market where it's been doing well. And when you're healthy-   Marc: It's great.   John: ...you think you're going to be healthy for a long time.   Marc: You don't think about it. Right, exactly.   John: You don't think about it all. It's back of your mind. I'll tell you where we see a lot of people concerned about it is if they had to do some care for their parents. Then it becomes top of mind of like, "Hey, this was a lot that I just went through." And taking care of them or seeing, whatever, if they have to go into a facility, and then in turn that's where we see the most of our clients that are concerned about healthcare costs is if they had to take care of a loved one.   Marc: Nick, according to the survey on that topic, advisors that were surveyed in this, were saying that clients should be more concerned about healthcare costs at around 54% unanticipated healthcare cost. Will you agree with that as well? Because I mean, obviously it comes out of the blue, it can totally derail the whole strategy.   Nick: Yeah, I think part of that is, from an advisor perspective, the whole concept of long-term care, obviously I'd say many advisors have a good grasp on long-term care, but I think it's become increasingly difficult for advisors to help clients plan for that with insurance or certain products that are out there. If we went back 10 years and from, let's just call it 2015 back through maybe 2005, that was the golden era per se for clients to be able to secure a reasonably priced policy from a long-term care perspective. So I think maybe that ties into the concern that advisors have is that at the end of the day it's a really expensive problem that clients can have, but it's also an expensive solution that a lot of clients are reticent to spend on something that may not be an issue, especially in a state like Florida where all of the insurance, people have serious insurance fatigue here.   Marc: Oh, I'm sure.   Nick: So it's a funny thing. The one time I actually answered a soliciting call earlier this morning was from State Farm calling me to, and they asked me if they could shop my car insurance for me, and I said, "Sure, let's try it." And sure enough, it was going to be $1,400 a year more than what I'm currently paying.   Marc: Thanks for the help.   Nick: And she laughed too, and she's like, "Well, can I call you in six months?" I was like, "You can try."   Marc: You can try.   Nick: I don't think you guys are going to come down that much. And so it's just crazy with what people are paying here. And so I think, long story short, I think that really ties into it as well for advisors.   Marc: And I'll hit you with this last one, John. I'll let you start and then I'll let Nick jump in if he wants to. And again, this survey was completed at the end of last year, so you can't take the current market downturn into this conversation. But according to the survey, an average of 63% of clients age 55 or older intended to work to 65 and beyond. 63% of people wanted to continue working up to 65 or beyond, yet only 30% of those clients are actually still doing it. So I guess my question is, does this surprise you that people want to keep working longer? And if so, what are some of the main reasons why you guys are seeing people want to work into their older ages?   John: It doesn't surprise me. I think with the shift really since COVID of being able to work remote, I've seen a lot of people that sit there now thinking like, hey, I work from home. I can travel still and log in. And it's given them a comfort of just saying, yeah, I'm making good money. I can continue to do this.   Marc: Feather than nest some more, right?   John: Yeah, so it's just building up the nest egg and allows them maybe to feel comfortable doing some more travel that they otherwise maybe wouldn't have felt so comfortable doing. We talked about the fears of outliving your assets, so I've seen a lot of that. And then there's a lot of studies out there saying, just keeping sharp of mind. So I've seen that where people are like, "Hey, I don't want to retire because I want to stay active. I want to have a purpose and continue to do things." So I think I'm not surprised by that number.   Marc: Interesting.   John: Because we're having more conversations of people wanting to work longer because they enjoy what they're doing. And with Zoom, it's become very easy to continue to work longer.   Marc: Well Nick, I'll give you this last piece here. 48% of those people feel like they don't have enough saved to live on through retirement. I mean, you're talking about half. So half of the people surveyed don't think they have enough, so that sounds like it just comes back to just not truly having a plan or even really knowing what it is that you've got. They've probably never sat down and really pulled this stuff together so they don't feel confident.   Nick: Correct. I think you nailed it there. The uncertainty of not having a plan and not knowing and understanding what things look like really oftentimes causes procrastination, and then all of a sudden it's 5, 7, 10 years later and there could have been a couple of small tweaks or a couple of small adjustments. I mean, in reality, there's been so many times when within 30 minutes if John and I meeting with somebody the initial time, we can tell three to five things that they could do that wouldn't have a significant impact on their life, but would have a significant impact from a positive perspective on their overall planning. And so whether it's informing themselves and holding themselves accountable or working with an advisor, which we have found, and there's been a ton of studies that have found that having that partner to help guide them through the decision-making process, that there's significant value there and the average rates of return and all that kind of stuff show that because of the decision-making.   Marc: Well, think about what you're going through with the wedding planning stuff. So there was a thing a couple years ago we were talking about, some of the most stressful events we can do in life, one of them was planning for a wedding. One of them was planning for retirement, right?   Nick: Yeah.   Marc: There's a lot of decisions to be made. And so having somebody to lean on I think goes a long way into removing some of that stress because it does get overwhelming. And at some points you're just like, ah, screw it. I don't even know what to do anymore. So being able to talk with guys like yourselves and say, "Okay, look. Here's some thoughts we had," or, "Here's what we were afraid of," or whatever the case is, it gives you that sounding board to bounce some ideas off of and maybe get some reassurance.   Nick: Yep, fully agree.   Marc: Yeah, and so are you having that same problem from the wedding standpoint?   Nick: Right now we're interviewing planners-   Marc: There you go.   Nick: ...and the prices have gone up, so it's-   Marc: But you're looking for help, right, because it's a lot.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.   Marc: John, you don't want to be the wedding planner?   John: No, no. I did that 12 years ago-   Marc: I got you.   John: ...and I want no part of that.   Marc: I got you. Well, all right, guys, good conversation as always. Thanks so much for hanging out. So at the end of the day, I mean you find these surveys are pretty interesting. And I think a lot of this stuff comes back fairly similar each time, is that people are looking for some assurance. They're looking for some clarity in some of these situations, so that's the point of running through the planning process is finding out what do you got, where do you stand and how's it working for you, and do you need to make some changes?   Often people feel like we're going to have to do some major overhaul, and it scares them. But a lot of times when you run through the planning process, many people are in better shape than they realize. You just need some tweaks here and there. So if you want to have those conversations for yourself, reach out to John and Nick and get started today at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com. Get yourself onto the calendar for a consultation and a conversation.   And don't forget to subscribe to us on Apple or Spotify, whatever podcasting app you like using. Retirement Planning - Redefined is the name of the show with John and Nick, and we'll see you next time here on the program. Thanks, guys. Take care of yourself.

Wednesday 3/12/25 – The MCU'S Bleeding Edge is LIVE covering Episode 3 of Daredevil: Born Again on Disney+, produced by Marvel Studios. So far, this series has connected well with the original Netflix show and has been well received. Leading this week's discussion is Co-host Jeff S ($TrueKnowledge), with Co-host Cyberneticshark joining Andres The Pop Culture Guy, Jesse Starcher (The Source Material Comics Podcast on W2M Network), and Hen & John (It's What We Do Podcast) on the guest panel. If you're enjoying our Daredevil coverage on YouTube or in podcast form, please consider supporting us by liking, following, subscribing, and leaving a comment! The MCU'S Bleeding Edge reviews movies and TV series every week with the help of amazing guest creators from all corners of the digital content world! Cybers LINKS- https://www.youtube.com/@cyberneticshark all his links can be found on YT!!Andres LINKS- https://www.youtube.com/@PopCultureguy https://www.youtube.com/@DCMarvelPlusTalkAll The MCU'S Bleeding Edge's LINKShttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100090571329875https://www.twitch.tv/themcusbleedingedgehttps://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-mcus-bleeding-edgehttps://rumble.com/c/c-1009757https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCREPsCRvzjH0ggYL_Larq1Ahttps://www.tiktok.com/@UCREPsCRvzjH0ggYL_Larq1A https://twitter.com/mcusbleedingedgCo-host Cyberneticshark is using a Logitech BRIO along with Skullcandy headphones, a Audio- Technica AT2020 Condenser Studio Microphone, going through a 2021 Flagship Lenovo Legion 5 Gaming laptop. Co-host Jeff S(TrueKnowledge) is working with a Audio- Technica ATR2100 Condenser Studio Microphone, along with a pair of Audio- Technica Headphones, Logitech BRIO- C920-C922-Streamcam, going through a 2023 MacBook Pro along with using a ACER Nitro 5.

Turned On With Sue & John - It's sex ed that makes you better in bed! This is show #116! Today we introduce you to Bel Di Lorenzo, author of the #1 best seller The Gohddess Method! It's a fascinating conversation about vagina gymnastics! Over the years, she has empowered women worldwide by coaching them in this practice, which enhances female pleasure, boosts libido, and amplifies orgasms. Her mission is to help more women discover the transformative power of Pompoir through practical, science-backed content, and to pioneer advancements in female health research. 
Website: https://www.gohddess.com
The Gohddess Method on Amazon:  https://a.co/d/gh4DDOC
 Also today: - A new study reveals the top countries for men with larger penises. - A listener asks Sue about a sex rash and wonders if it's normal. - Got the January “Blahs?” We'll introduce you to pleasure activism! - So… You're a swinger! What to pack for your trip to the resort. - Dispelling some common sex myths - This week's Sex In The News - Your very hot kinky confessions And loads more!
 Download our app, ask questions, submit a "Turned On Voice ID" for us to use on the show, share a kinky confession and more at www.turnedonpodcast.com

Isaiah 40:3;  Malachi 3:1, 4:5-6;  Matthew 11:9-10, 13-15;  Luke 1   How do you prepare when you have someone special coming?   The backstory of John:            It was told John would prepare the way:  Isaiah 40:3,  Malachi 3:1, 4:5-6.           Jesus explained to His disciples who would prepare the way:  Matthew 11:9-10, 113-15          The miraculous birth of John.  Luke 1                   - Do you believe in God when He speaks to you?  Do you take Him at His Word?                   - Have you experienced being filled with the Holy Spirit?  Do you know what it is like?   How do you prepare when you have someone special coming?                Are you prepared for the coming of the King?                Are you preparing the way?  Sharing the Good News about JESUS, the KING

In 1984, John Fashanu, a black Englishman of Nigerian descent, signed with the British club: Millwall FC; an openly racist club at that time. The semi-official chant the supporters sing from the crowd is: ‘We are Millwall, No One Likes Us, No One Likes Us, We Don't Care, We are Millwall, From the Den'. (The Den is the name of their home ground) The supporters hated him, they abused him, they threw bananas at him, they threatened his life if he dare stay. Somehow, as time progressed - they came to adore him. Impossibly, he became the most beloved player at the club. His passion, his skill and of course his goals just won them over, kind of like the Soviet crowd conversion in Rocky IV. In fact, they revered him so much that when he left the club, the ‘ultra' supporters – a notorious group known as the F Troupe – were so distraught, that they took out a hit on his life, and he had to go into hiding. And this is just chapter 4 for John – It was such a good time to chat with him - Give us a listen to hear it all. soccerPod - Ep: 20Thanks for listening! We appreciate your support. If you love SoccerPod, please consider supporting us through our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/soccerpodBy subscribing to our Patreon, you get behind-the-scenes content, discounts on merchandise and the opportunity to submit questions for future guests. Connect with us on social:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soccer.pod/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/soccerpodTwitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerPod1YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@soccerPod-go5vx

Have Fantasy Hockey Questions? Send Us A Text! The Hacks (Devon, Bruce and Tyler) are back for one last lap around the rink... It was a difficult decision to end what has been a fantastic experience, with the best group of guys; but as they say, all good things must come to an end.To our listeners and supporters - thank you so much. We never thought we would have a loyal audience and following like the one we've built over the past few years. The kind words and reviews meant more than you know. To my fellow Hacks (Bruce, Tyler and John) - It's been an honor and a privilege, I truly could not have done this without you. Good luck everyone with the remainder of the season. May your forwards flourish, your D be steady, and always be Zero G ready!Take care, Devon Twitter - @FHHacks | Instagram - @FantasyHockeyHacks | Website - FantasyHockeyHacks.com

In this episode of Building Texas Business, I discuss John Marvin's transformative leadership journey as CEO and President of Texas State Optical (TSO). Founded in 1936 by the Rogers brothers, TSO evolved into a franchise operation spearheaded by John starting in the 1990s. Hear John's compelling account of reviving the brand, establishing the franchise association, and guiding the innovative physician-owned business model that has empowered young optometrists for decades. With the evolving eyewear landscape, our conversation analyzes consumer behavior shifts and their implications for strategic competition amid growing online retailers. We also explore the importance of supporting TSO's physician member network through mentorship and partnerships, especially given industry consolidation challenges. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS John D Marvin shares the history of Texas State Optical (TSO), founded by the Rogers brothers in 1936, and its growth into a franchise operation. We discuss how John Marvin revitalized TSO in the 1990s and his journey to becoming the president of the company in 2001. The episode explores the challenges and strategies involved in competing with online retailers in the eyewear industry, emphasizing the importance of convenience and well-stocked dispensaries. John describes the shift in optometry ownership trends, with fewer young optometrists interested in private practice, paralleling broader healthcare industry trends. We examine the strategic importance of building a physician member network to support optometrists and the criteria for network inclusion. The episode delves into leadership principles inspired by John C. Maxwell, highlighting the role of influence, trust, and accountability in effective leadership. John reflects on the transformative impact of setbacks, such as being fired, and how these experiences shape one's leadership journey. We explore the importance of forming strategic vendor partnerships and the role of mutual accountability in maintaining long-lasting business relationships. John emphasizes the need to adapt to industry shifts, including the rise of artificial intelligence, while fostering an innovative mindset among optometrists. The episode concludes with a discussion on the significance of understanding and meeting customer needs through effective consumer research, as a universal business strategy. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Texas State Optical GUESTS John D MarvinAbout John TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In this episode you will meet John Marvin, ceo and President of Texas State Optical. John shares his views on how the fundamentals of leadership boil down to influencing and how having mutual accountability in your business relationships create win situations. John, I want to thank you for taking the time to join me today. It's really been a pleasure to get to know you before we got started here. John: Well, Chris, I appreciate the opportunity to sit down. I always love talking about business. Chris: Well, that's good, that's what we're going to do. So you're the CEO and president of Texas State Optical, or most people know it as TSO. That's right. Tell us a little more detail about what is the company, what does it do and what is it really known for in the market. John: Okay Well, texas State Optical was founded in 1936 by four brothers the Rogers brothers, in Beaumont, texas, and anybody who's been to Beaumont or familiar with Beaumont knows of the impact those four brothers had on that community and then in turn throughout Texas. Two of the brothers were optometrists and they opened pretty traditional optometry practice. And if you'll think about what else was going on in 1936 in Beaumont, it was the oil boom that was just blowing up, and so the one that originally came to Texas from Chicago all four of them were from Chicago called back home and said boys, you need to move down here. We got a big opportunity and they did, and consequently, over the next several years they built a large retail optical chain they called Texas State Optical, and one time in the early 60s it had reached over 300 locations. And one time in the early 60s it had reached over 300 locations and those were in New Mexico, oklahoma, arkansas, louisiana and Texas, and so that went on until, due to some legal issues with the state optometric group, who decided that they didn't want someone in the state running 300 locations, they passed some legislation that limited optometrists to only three locations and so they could subsequently, after a long legal battle had to sell off most of their property, but they kept the core of the business of the optical lab. They kept that and kind of a condition of buying. The practice was that you obligated yourself to continue to purchase items from them. But then in the late 60s the Rogers, having gone through this process of dissolving their ownership in it, decided to turn their attention towards real estate development and at one point they owned 25% of Caesars Palace in Vegas. They just got involved in other things and then consequently in the early 70s they sold the company to a large pharmaceutical company, gd Searle, who then subsequently sold the company in the early 80s to Pearl Vision. Most people are familiar with Pearl Vision, most people are familiar with ProVision and ran that until the late 80s when they sold it to a group of kind of investors who wanted to own it. They didn't really know how to run it than investors. So in I got involved in 1993 doing consumer research for the corporate office. My background at the time I had a company marketing management group and based here in Houston and it was a small marketing management and consumer research group and was doing work in other areas. But picked them up as a client and began to do a lot of consumer study for them and learned about the business. At that time it was somewhat distressed because of the leadership that had taken over from the Pearl Vision taken over from Pearl, and so there was a lot of unrest among the franchisees because at that time TSO was a franchise operation and so I helped them form a franchise association and then kind of on a part-time arrangement took on an executive director position within that while maintaining my consumer study and research stuff. And so that happened until the late nineties, when everyone was planning for the great millennium you know, the 2000 and Y2, right, right. And so we gathered everybody in my conference room over here and how, booty building, and down here in the galleria and they started you know, flip chart sheets, what do we want to accomplish? And blah, blah, blah, and and that the result of that was really, guys, you're not going to get any of this done unless you own it. And so we began to have some discussions about them buying the company, the, the franchisor, and that took about a year to negotiate, and during that process I was asked to come on as the new president and since and then we closed in June of 2001, and since that time I've been the acting and operational by president and CEO of the company, and one of the reasons that it appealed to me was it was the ultimate fixer-upper, because the company had really was kind of loosely held together but had an iconic brand, and so we started opening new locations with Young Optometrist and we're a brand license company. So we knew that the only way we could pick up a new customer, if you would be, if a young OD wanted to open their own practice and then we could help them do that. People that were established at the time and successful weren't interested in converting to a retail trade name, so we did. We opened up about 80 new locations and helped a lot of young ODs live a dream and had put together a whole turnkey system commercial realty contractors the whole nine yards. Chris: That's a fascinating history, you know, to kind of just see it grow so big in the beginning, get broken down and then almost come back together. Yeah with, I guess in 2001 you said, with these individual practice owners or franchisees becoming owners. John: That's, you know, kind of unique, especially for doctors yeah, it was a different approach to it, one of the reasons we can set it as a now. We never incorporated it as a cooperative, we incorporated it as for-profit. We simply chose to run it as a cooperative, which, by its nature of co-op, isn't intended to make money, right? So we could keep the services and the value of what we offer members very high because we priced it at a break-even point, and so it was very appealing to a lot of young ODs who needed that help without any experience knowing what to do. And, of course, we then had a retail trade name that had market appeal. So a lot of them benefited greatly by, as opposed, to, opening up under their own name and unknown in a community. Chris: Yeah, it gives it instant credibility with the brand name right. That's right. What are some of the things I guess that you know since that time in 2001, that you do and your team around you, to kind of help preserve that brand value, to make it marketable and enticing to these doctors. John: Well, part of it is the importance. An optometry practice as a small business has a very defined marketplace of about three radium miles Okay, so one. That's part of that is because there are so many options and the profession is a licensed profession and so there's a little bit of perception by consumers that it's a commodity. In other words, anybody who's got a license will be able to give you a good exam. Consumers at one time back in the 60s and 70s, thought mostly of wherever they got their exams. That's where they purchased their eyewear. Chris: Out of convenience, right Out of convenience. John: That's right. And in the 80s you had a much more proliferation of retail optical chains like LensCrafters and EyeMasters at the time and Pearl Vision, which were creating an awareness among consumers that you know what, I can get my exam in one location and I can buy my eyewear in another location, and so that added to that sense of commodity. And so what we've done is focus on a three mile marketplace. So instead of running one advertising campaign in Houston, we run 50 around each of our locations, and those are largely driven through community involvement, pay-per-click, you know, today pay-per-click In the beginning though, a lot of it was just getting to know your school nurse, getting to know the coaches in the league ball game, and so from a marketing strategy it was always hyper-local standpoint. And so if you go into some neighborhoods, everyone knows the TSO. If you go into an neighborhood where we have no location, maybe not so much, and that was done probably more just from a practical standpoint of cost than it was anything else, because you know Houston and Dallas. Where we're at in San Antonio, they're very expensive media markets and so if you've only got, you know, 20 locations in the DFW market to go in and try to buy television, advertising or something more traditional is prohibited, and so it makes a lot more sense because that's where people live and work. People ask me sometimes how do you go about picking your locations, your real estate stuff? And I said we tend to let Kroger and HEB do that for us. So, wherever they're at, we want to be close because that's a neighborhood. Chris: That's right. You figured they thought there were enough households to support a grocery store. So I like that, you know, uh, you know. There's a lesson there, though, for a business owner, an entrepreneur, in that you don't necessarily have to do all your own organic research if you don't know, aware what's going on, you can, you know, let someone else do some of that and just make sure that their end users look like yours, and that's right. John: They do a tremendous job, both of those companies, at understanding the market before they ever buy land or pour concrete. I'd hate to insult them by not taking advantage of all that good work they do. Chris: They're genius right, they're genius, that's right. You just mentioned, you said 30 different or 50 different marketing campaigns in Houston alone. I mean, how do you go about figuring out you know the right message for the right place? That must take a lot of work. John: Well, not so much I mean because the message in Sugar Land is the same as the message in the Woodlands. I mean people. While we, as as in our profession, try to complicate this, it's pretty simple from a consumer standpoint. They're looking for a place where they can get their eyes checked and buy a pair of glasses. But probably two-thirds of all of our revenue today come from a third-party payer. So that changes kind of the basic consumer behavior dynamic. But by putting out a message that really is focused on that group of people in terms of maximizing the value of those coverage benefits, that becomes real consistent and then it's a matter of just being louder than anybody else. Chris: Sure, while we're on the subject of that consumer and consumer behavior, what are some of the things that you have done over the last 10, 15 years to either combat the online competition, as you mentioned, because people get their eyes examined and they either go online or do something. How are you managing that and what are some of the strategies you found to be successful? John: Well, first of all, consumers are driven, and I think this may be generally true, but certainly our consumers are driven with the priority on convenience, and one of the reasons the online marketing purchase of eyewear is so appealing is its convenience, and oftentimes it's not a price issue as much as it is a convenience issue and assortment and selection. So one of the things that we focus on is to make sure that our retail dispensary that's what we call the retail store aspect of a practice is well inventoried with product and assortment price points, and then the ultimate differentiation is customer service and knowledgeable people, and so if you have selection pricing and knowledgeable people, it's a home run and you don't have to worry about it, because if you can make it convenient for them, then they're not tempted to go online. And because there's a lot of I don't know if you've ever bought a pair of shoes online, but all you need to do is have one bad experience with that and have to turn around, send them back and so forth and so on that people would really prefer to get it locally, where I got my, where they received their exam, and it's kind of hours to lose. So we try to make sure we don't give them a reason to leave. Chris: Yeah Well, it's an interesting analogy with the shoes, because I can relate to that and see that people like to try on shoes but also glasses right. John: What are these going to look? Chris: like, and if you're at a store with a good selection, it's all right there as opposed to ordering one or two online and knowing you're going to be returning something. Advert Hello friends, this is Chris Hanslick, your Building Texas business host. Did you know that Boyer Miller, the producer of this podcast, is a business law firm that works with entrepreneurs, corporations and business leaders? Our team of attorneys serve as strategic partners to businesses by providing legal guidance to organizations of all sizes. Get to know the firm at BoyerMillercom, and thanks for listening to the show. That's right, yes, well, that's it. So let's shift now kind of to this physician member network. What do you look for, if anything, as far as qualifying people to come into the brand, and then how do you help, kind of manage and support once they're in the network, if you will, to make sure that you're doing all you can to help them be successful? John: It's an interesting change we're seeing right now, especially in the last five to 10 years, and that is, the number of young optometrists who have an interest in owning their own practice is going away. Chris: It's really an interesting thing. John: One. It's very similar to what's going on in healthcare in general. You know, I was just talking to some people last week and I said you know when was the last time I asked them? I said do you have children? Yes, do you have a pediatrician? Yes, is that pediatrician private practice? Chris: No. John: It's owned by some big organization like Texas Children's, and what you're seeing in healthcare delivery at the provider level is a consolidation of these organizations and the disappearing of private practice, and we're seeing that now in optometry. And another big dynamic is 85% of all optometry graduates today are female, and in the 80s that number was just the opposite. It was very unusual in the 80s and early 90s to see women in optometry school. I mean they certainly didn't represent the majority. And so with that comes different priorities of practice. You know you don't have the hard-charging young guy who wants to go into small-town Texas and really build up a big practice or even a metro area. You have people that are much more interested in part-time, that I want to be able to step aside, raise my family, then maybe come back later, and so there's a whole different culture among the providers now coming in. So our organization as a business model relies on young optometrists wanting to own their own practice, and if that category is declining we've got to come up with some other plan here to maintain Sure. So one the opportunities we have are less. The vetting process is largely a discussion with very successful people. Our board of directors consists of nine doctors and three outside directors, but the nine doctors are all very successful. And so a young person does approach me and we talk, I want them to speak to one of our successful guys, and then their job is to kind of assess and come back to me and say, John, I don't know if she's ready, I don't know if he can do this, or I think this is a home run, let's go. And with their input and my discussion I've been doing it now long enough that I kind of get a feel for it Then we'll say let's go. And really it's a matter of they own everything. It's a matter of us guiding them through the process and then supporting them with just the knowledge they don't have about building a practice afterwards, and then lots of follow-up and hand-holding. Chris: And it's done. I think you said just as, basically a license agreement where they're licensing the name and brand and they get some support as a result of that as well. John: I mean contractually, I'm not obligated to support anything. Contractually I'm not obligated to support anything. All I'm obligated to do is to keep the value of the brand consistent with what they're paying for it. But I realized that if they're not successful, my brand value suffers. So we do all that we can to support them and help them be successful. Chris: So let's talk a little bit about your internal team. I mean, you've got a team I think you said 12, that's kind of help support you, that support these members. What have you found to be successful as you've gone through maybe trials and tribulations of hiring the right people, making sure you've got the right people in the right seat to kind of support the business and the brand? John: You know, that's a great question, because I, up until about 2015, I took a whole different approach to personnel than I did 2015 and on, and it was like I learned something, and that is I put together a group of really knowledgeable people in terms of their expertise in certain areas, but the quality that I had not paid attention to prior to that was they also had to be connectors. They had to be the kind of people that could say hey, chris, I know somebody you ought to talk to. And so because when a non-doctor walks into a doctor's office, even with the responsibility of helping, they carry a different level of credibility with that doctor than if a doctor told them something. If we go in and say, hey, listen, you need to be open Saturdays, because there's a lot of business on Saturdays, I don't want to do it. But if a doctor tells them, oh man, you got to be open Saturday, they'll listen to it. But if a doctor tells them, oh man, you've got to be open Saturday, they'll listen to it. And so our guys who are in the field, they do tactical training and support for staff, but when a doctor is facing an issue that they know the answer to, they in turn, seek out other leadership in the doctor community to say would you mind giving so-and-so a call Because I think you could help them get through whatever issue they're dealing with. And so that quality and frankly it's, you know it requires someone who doesn't have much of an ego. Sure, because you know I say this all the time like my old friend Ronald Reagan used to say, there's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit. Chris: Yeah. John: And so we take that approach, and ours isn't about trying to get a bunch of credit. Ours is about trying to lift up this organization and get these guys successful, and if we're simply a facilitator in information to how to do that, we don't have to be the initial provider of that information. Even if we know it, it comes much better from a colleague, and so that's one of the things that we put a lot of emphasis on is helping the network, help each other. Chris: So you know you were very quick to say 2015. Have you seen a dramatic improvement in the performance of the overall business since making that change and kind of focusing on the connector quality as being an additional important quality in the people you bring on? John: Very much so, because what Texas State Optical was in the beginning was a doctor-owned organization and doctors working with other doctors to help them grow a network and large business. We're trying to replicate that from the standpoint of, especially as the business, the structure we use I mentioned earlier as a cooperative. It requires doctor leadership to be active and engaged in running their own company, their owners of the company, and so, while I have certainly an important role in that, the more doctors that engage in the leadership of the organization, the better it is overall. And since we took that intentional effort in 2015, a couple of things too. We had a kind of an evolution of membership. I mean, we had a lot of our older doctors retire and sell practices, and then we had a whole influx of young doctors, and so we ended up in 2015 with an organization that was significantly different demographically, both age and gender. That was significantly different demographically, both age and gender. But we thought they need mentorship among the leadership in the organization, and so we worked at creating that for them, and it impacts not just clinical I mean, there's also that aspect of it they're learning clinically from friends but operationally, and so it made a big difference Very good. Chris: I know that you have supply agreements with certain labs and other things. Let's talk about some of the things that you found to be successful in maintaining, I guess, forming those kind of key strategic relationships for the business, and maybe some of the things you do to make sure that you foster and keep them strong of the things you do to make sure that you foster and keep them strong. John: Well, in the vendor-doctor community there is a kind of an assumption made by both sides, and one is the doctor assumes that the vendor's got more money than they know how to spend or what they've got all this money to spend, and the vendor assumes the doctor's not going to follow through on all the promises they make. So that's kind of where we start at the table, and so I think it's important and what we've worked at bringing to our relationships is mutual accountability, and we have found our vendor partners to be extremely invested in our success, but at the same time they've got a business to run as well, and so our success with them and that dynamic of that exchange or relationship cannot be at the vendor's expense. It's gotta be the classic cliche win type of thing, but you only get win if you have mutual accountability. And so in every agreement we have, here's what the vendor commits to and here's what the doctor community commits to. And then we have business reviews where we sit down and say here's where we're dropping the ball or here's where you're dropping the ball, and we hold that accountability does a long goes a long way to not only making the relationship productive but also building trust and longevity into those partnerships, because if you're making money with a partner, you don't want it to stop, right, you know? And that goes both ways If you're a doctor making money with a partner, you don't want it to stop, and if money with a partner, you don't want it to stop, and if you're a partner, you don't want to stop. So I found that type of mutual accountability and the willingness to be held accountable is critical to those relationships Very good. Chris: So you know. Talk a little bit about leadership. You've been running this organization for a long time now. How would you describe your leadership style and how do you think that's evolved over time? John: well, I would. I don't know if I've ever been asked to describe it, but I would say it's Maxwellian. Okay, and that means John C Maxwell, who is an author, has written a number of books on leadership and, in my opinion, probably is the most the best leadership author. I'm biased, of course, but I think he is. Forbes Magazine said that a few years ago, but basically his definition of leadership is influence. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just influence. And an example of that is if you walk into a room of people, you're naturally going to notice someone who's exercising influence on others, and it isn't an authoritarian way, it's in a trust and credibility way. And so if you're influencing, you're leading. If you're not, it doesn no matter what title you have. So an example is my when I explained how we use doctors to help influence other doctors. So that's a level of influence that doesn't come because I require somebody to do something. It it occurs because you're able to influence others to to make a difference. So I would. I'm a big believer in that. I'll plug his book. There are 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. It's a classic, and so that's like a Bible. It's my business Bible in terms of leadership style. Chris: I was going to use that word because others and it's fair to plug books, because sometimes I ask people what's a book you would recommend. We hear a lot of good to great from people Sure, jim Collins. But what I love what you said if you're influencing, you're leading, because I say a lot of times a true leader leads without a title. John: Right, you're actually doing things without the title to demonstrate leadership, which is what you're talking about Exactly, and if you do have the title and can influence, it's a home run. It's a home run, yeah. Chris: So you've learned that through lots of trials and tribulations. I think we all learn through mistakes or setbacks Anything you could share with the listeners about a decision made that didn't go the way you thought but you learned from it and that learning kind of catapulted you made you better because of it. Setback, failure whatever word you want to describe Anything you could you care to share in that realm. John: Sure the. So I came to Houston. I was born and raised in Western Kansas and I was in Wichita born and raised in western Kansas, and I was in Wichita, kansas, in 1989, excuse me, in the late 80s, 84, 89 era and I was working for a large ophthalmology practice up there as a marketing administrator and in that role I attended a lot of national meetings in ophthalmology and during that meeting I met an owner of a large Houston ophthalmology and during that meeting I met an owner of a large Houston ophthalmology group who ended up offering me a job and I came to Texas. Due to some marketing challenges we were facing at that practice, I was introduced to Texas State Optical while I was at that practice and then left after about four years, left that practice and went to a consumer research firm here in Stafford and quickly turned around and went to Texas State Optical to see if they would like to buy some insurance I'm not insurance, buy some research and they did so. I ended up doing this large project for them but also ended up doing a ton of work for HLMP. During the time they were prepared to try to go to battle with Enron and this was like early nineties, right, and so everything was going well. And then I get fired from the research thing. Now I moved my family down from Kansas. I've been in the state about five and a half years and I get fired. I've been in the state about five and a half years and I get fired. And that was a big you know. Anytime you've been fired, that kind of devastates you Right, it shakes you up. Chris: Yeah, it does. John: But had that not happened, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing Right, and so I have learned, and what pulled me through that is faith, Faith in God and faith in myself is faith, faith in God and faith in myself, and I felt like I can do, kind of what. There was a part of it, chris, that was liberating, because that was like, instead of thinking now what am I going to do, I was thinking now what am I going to do. I mean, it was a whole different frame of attitude and that subsequently ended up leading to the position I have today, through working with franchisees at Texas State Optical and so forth. Chris: That's a great story. Thank you for sharing. You bet A lot of people don't want to talk about, especially if they've been fired for something. But to your point on that, these other opportunities would have never presented themselves right, because you likely stayed in the comfort of the job and seeing where that takes you. You know there's so much that can come. John: Actually, I'd gone to that research firm. The owner of it had brought me there with the promise implied I mean not implied, but it wasn't in writing but the idea was that I would take over that firm at some point and it turned out that didn't work out Well you know a lot of what you, I think, describe. Chris: The undertone to that is the mindset you had in the wake of that setback. You know you didn't let it take you down. You're like like you said what am I going to go? Do I got all these opportunities and go? Explore and figure it out. John: So I had about 30 days before the next house payment came, so that you were acting quick, got to be decisive man. Chris: You can't be stewing on decisions forever, for sure, well, that and so you know that leadership, you know is forged and helped you get to where you are today. You know, when you, when you think about applying that mindset and that leadership kind of style, how does it help you kind of navigate the ups and downs of the economic cycles that we've experienced over the last 20 plus years? John: Well, you know, first of all is to understand which of these cycles are cyclical. That's a little redundant, but I mean, what is it we're going through that's cyclical. That you can. You know, business loves a stable and predictable environment. Right Now, the reality is it's ups and downs. But if it's ups and downs within a certain range of up and down, it's stable right, and you can prepare for it Certain tolerances right, yeah certain tolerances. What we've seen, not only in the economy and that's a whole different issue but what we've seen in the profession itself and the consolidation of private practice by private equity that's come into the marketplace, is we're seeing disruption like we haven't seen before. And I was talking to one of our board members doctor board members about it and we were just, you know, he was pointing out all of the things that are kind of out without from under excuse me, out of our control, and as we were talking about it, I had this thought and I told him. I said it's a great time to be alive and that because we're the ones that get to go through this, and in many ways I believe that our profession is going through a transformation that will take probably a 20 year period of time. But 40 years from now, optometry, I don't think, will look anything like it does today, and it's always bumpy to be in the middle of that turbulent transformation. The 80s were very steady, the 90s were pretty steady. It was in starting about 2010, 2000, that things started rapidly changing and then the acceleration with just technology and everything else is just gone, and then you've got now the whole world of artificial intelligence coming into play and it's. I consider it exciting, invigorating, challenging, but I mean what's? The alternative is to be bored right. Chris: Well, if you don't adopt and if you're not using it, you die use it you die, that's right. So I mean, you know, kind of it's a great segue to what are some of the things you do to kind of foster that maybe innovative mindset of how you're going to embrace the technological changes and use them in the business model to further the brand and the business. John: So I there's very little I can do without the support of the doctor, owner, community right. And sometimes there's a lot of indecision, because when you're not sure what to do, you're scared of doing the wrong thing. Chris: Sure, Well, it seems like you got a lot of opinions that out there too, right? John: You got a lot of them, and so what I have to do is to influence them through other people and through information, to get them to a point of being open enough to consider ideas that they might consider kind of sacrilege in some case. For instance, what is real common in most optometry practices today is what's called an autorefractor. It's a machine that people go through and it gives you a prescription, and the prescription is used by the doctor to zero in on where your visual acuity is right. Well, when that first came out, optometrists thought that was the end of the profession. Here's a machine that'll do what I'm doing. Optometrists thought that was the end of the profession. Here's a machine that'll do what I'm doing. And so there's a fear oftentimes of innovation. Right, that you have to assure people that there's a way to use this to our benefit, and that's what we're going through with artificial intelligence right now. One group is scared to death. It's going to replace them. The other group is glad they're old enough, they're probably not going to have to go through with it. And then you're looking for those people who say, hey, how can we utilize this to really to our benefit? Yeah, and once people feel that's safe enough to kind of try. Then the people realize that the fear is misplaced. Chris: So true, right, but it takes education, information and influence, as you said, to get people to get there so that they can adopt it One of the things that I teach my team to say. John: I mean to believe, and I say it all the time is we believe in everybody's right to make a bad decision. So if someone listens to us and they choose not to do what we're recommending and we know it's a good decision what we're recommending and they choose not to, it's their right. You know, I mean everybody's right to waste their own money. So that kind of patience is necessary with a group like ours. In many ways it's like working with a volunteer organization. Chris: Yeah, well, lots of challenges there, I'm sure. Well, john, this has been a great conversation. I really appreciate you sharing everything I want to ask you, I guess, going back to your days, you know, I guess growing up in Kansas what was your first job? John: A drugstore Rexall drugstore and I grew up in a town of 2000 people and my dad was the family physician of the community and so of course in a town like that in western Kansas the doctor and the pharmacist are close relationship. And so I got my first job at a drugstore, working a soda fountain, delivering prescriptions, restocking things. Like that had a blast and that really I learned a lot in that, not just like everybody learns a lot from their first job, but understanding. I was intrigued by Rexall. I don't know how familiar you are with Rexall, but Rexall was a national organization that gave private ownership of drugstores the purchasing power of a large corporate chain, and so my employer was the pharmacist. He owned the drug store and he stood up in the stand in the dais every day counting pills and chatting with people. So that was my first job. Chris: Very good. Well, you've been in Texas now since what the late? John: 80s. Chris: So do you prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue Barbecue? Okay. John: Barbecue Very good. My waistline prefers barbecue. Chris: And last thing if you could take a 30-day sabbatical, where would you go and what would you do? I don't know, Probably nuts. John: I just I've got to be engaged and I mean I don't have to be. I'm not select. I love business and I love the challenge it has. So I'm not I don't. You said earlier in our discussion about you were describing about the law firm. When I was doing consumer research, I did some healthcare work 12 Oaks Hospital was a client and so but I would tell people, is I specialize in a process, not an industry, because the process is the same and I would say that's what I really love about business, because when you boil it down to what I do and what you do and others that run businesses, it's the same process. It's understanding your customer and then directing how your services or products benefit that customer and communicating and the whole marketing scheme of promotion, price, product and place applies to every industry. And so I'd probably do something if I had 30 days. Like I said, I'd go nuts. Chris: Well, but I think what you just said there in the end is you have great insight and learning for business owners and entrepreneurs out there. You're trying to find their way. It's it is figure out what the consumer that you're catering to really wants and then deliver that as efficient as best you can that's why you know my, when I first got into consumer research, I thought this is like cheating. John: I mean you're actually going out and saying what do you want? They tell you, and then you give it to them. I mean it's like, it's amazing. Chris: Yeah, right, so well, this has been great, John. Thanks again for taking the time. You bet I really appreciate your invitation. Special Guest: John D Marvin.

We have entered this week into the final Days of Awe or the 10 days before Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement which is the Highest Holy Day of the Year on the Hebrew Calendar, October 12, 2024r. It is a solemn assembly where the Jewish people will come before the Lord for 24 hours and will repent of their sins for the last year and ask the Lord for forgiveness. This is the day that the High Priest would go into the Holy of Holies and make atonement with the blood of an unblemished lamb for himself and the sins of others. He would put that blood on the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant which sits in the Holy of Holies . Since there is no more an earthly temple to offer sacrifice for sin the Jewish people will simply understand that today is that special day but have no blood sacrifice for sin unless they understand Jesus as their High Priest in the order of Melchesidek who gave His own life for them and all of humanity.For those who believe in Jesus we understand this to be the time that Jesus became our sacrifice for sin and shed his own blood and went into the Heavenly Tabernacle and declared in book of John “ It is Finished”. Jesus' blood atonement was the beginning of a new and living way, a new eternal order. Hebrews 9: 28 says, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”On this day we remember that we have now eternal a new covenant relationship and our hearts and minds are sprinkled clean. We have a relationship with God are AT-ONE-MENT with Him. It is a new beginning of consecration and being set apart for the new year.This week God is working on faith. He is challenging our faith in every way. He is causing us to believe He is greater than. In everything He is asking us to do this week alone He is revealing our faith weakness and encouraging us to believe in Him as the one we can trust for a new life of abundance and grace. What is God stretching you on? Do not become weary in the stretching of your faith as faith pleases God and He is only taking you to next levels of knowing Him as being the faithful one. All faith challenges mean that He is offering us to know Him in a deeper way. He will come through for you! He is calling us to live a life of faith in abundance and move out of making decisions from lack. If your faith is being stretched it is because He is driving you beyond your lack mindset into a place of believing He is good and better and will indeed provide for you! Say YES to the faith challenge and begin to grow into all God has for you this year of Overwhelming Grace- 5785.Hebrews 10: 38 reads, “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.”Open yourself to the 7 blessings of the Season of Tabernacles from Joel 2:23-32 with financial abundance, double portion, restoration, miracles, God's divine presence, Blessings on sons and daughters, and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved or delivered.Watch last week message for more on the 7 blessings of Tabernacles. Sow your seed this week in accordance with Deuteronomy 16:16-7. Three times a year we are to come before the Lord and bless Him and this is one of those times. Maximize Your Prophetic Potential monthly class is Tuesday November 12 at 10 am and 6 pm EST. You can choose which one. Click here https://dream-mentors-transformational-life-coaching.teachable.com/p/maximize-your-prophetic-potential-course1/?preview=logged_outOnly $30 each month no discount code needed and join Candice Live Zoom!

Remember the thrill of shaking a Magic 8 Ball to get answers to your childhood questions? Would we ace that math test? Would we be famous someday? Well, today, we're bringing a bit of that magic back. But instead of asking about pop quizzes and playground crushes, we're turning to the Magic 8 Ball for advice on something much more important: your retirement planning! What would the Magic 8 Ball have to say about these common retirement questions if it had the wisdom of a financial advisor?   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com   Disclaimer: Speaker 1: PFG, Private Wealth Management LLC is an SEC registered investment advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk and unless otherwise stated are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance insurance. Products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents. Speaker 1: You all remember that thrill of shaking the Magic Eight Ball to get answers to those childhood questions we couldn't wait to find out? Would we ace that math test or be famous someday? All those crazy fun questions we had when we were kids. Well, this week on the podcast, we're going to do the Magic Eight Balls Guide to Retirement Planning with John and Nick here on Retirement Planning Redefined. What's going on everybody? Welcome into the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with John and Nick and myself as we talk investing, finance, and retirement. And we're going back to our childhood with the Magic Eight Ball. Going to have a little fun with these things and shake it up and see what kind of answers we get for retirement. Then of course, let the guys give us some proper answers just in case the Magic Eight Ball gets it wrong. But guys, what's going on this week? Good to talk with you as always. Nick, how are you buddy? Nick: Good, thanks. Just staying busy. Speaker 1: Staying busy, rocking and rolling. Very good. John, my friend, how are you? John: I'm doing all right. Getting ready for this upcoming storm we have, so. Speaker 1: Oh, big fun. Yeah. John: Getting to the grocery store quick, so all the crazies don't run me over. Speaker 1: Nice. Now you got little ones. Do they still sell the Magic Eight Balls in the store? I think they still make them. Don't they? John: They do. I think we had one at one point. Speaker 1: Nice. John: And it didn't work very well, so anytime they asked a question, it would end up on the side and they're like, what does it say? And I don't know. Speaker 1: I can't see it. You got to reshake. John: It was definitely something good that entertained them for a little bit. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: But like any little kid nowadays, it lasted all for about 20 minutes. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Yeah. John: Like, all right,- Speaker 1: Well I'm a wee little kid of the 70s, so I thought they were great. That and the Etch A Sketch and the Stretch Armstrong, I was a happy dude, so. But anyway, let's have a little fun with this, this week here and I'll toss you guys out a question. You kind of give us the Magic Eight Ball and your answer to it, or at least what it maybe should be, so to speak. Right. So we'll make it easy to kind of get things started. John, I'll toss this one to you. Should I start saving for retirement now? What's the Magic Eight Ball say? John: Magic Eight Ball is going to say yes, definitely. The sooner you can start the better. And that goes for anybody, whether that's you in your 20s. I have some clients that right out of college started and now they're in their late 30s, and when we do reviews occasionally, it's always like, "Hey, really appreciate you kind of getting on me for starting to save," because as life happens, expenses are going up, they have kids and stuff like that, it's harder to save. But when they didn't have too much going on in their early 20s expense wise, they were definitely built up a nest egg, so. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: If you haven't started at any point, wherever you are, 20, 30, 40, it's good idea to start. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean 50 as well, right? I mean it doesn't make a difference at this point. Waiting yet another day only causes you more problems, right? So should you start now? Definitely. And I'll give you guys kind of a little primer on the Magic Eight Ball. So we kind of looked through some of the stuff. They have, I guess what you'd call the green, kind of the positive answers, right? Stuff like the one John just got there, yes, definitely, most likely, out look good, that kind of stuff. Then they had that kind of middle of the road, nah, not so sure, right? Reply hazy, ask again later, better not tell you now, that kind of thing. And then of course they had the negatives, which was my reply is, no, very doubtful, don't count on it. So on and so forth. So we'll use those answers to kind of kick things off with each one of these episodes and then let the guys expand on it like John just did. All right Nick, so your turn, give it a go. Is a million dollars enough to retire on? What says the Magic Eight Ball? Nick: That's definitely a reply hazy, try again answer on that one. A consistent conversation that we have with people, whether it's somebody that we've worked with for a while or somebody that has come to us and we're kind of taking them through the planning process is that everybody's situation is different. Speaker 1: Sure. Nick: People love to compare things with each other, whether it's cars, houses, finances, whatever. And we try to make sure that people understand that comparing themselves even to a sibling or a neighbor or friend doesn't necessarily make sense. Some of the most common examples that we'll see are people that maybe they have pension plans because of the sort of job that they have. Speaker 1: Yeah, they saved a million, but they got a pension versus someone who saved a million and doesn't. That's a dramatically different setup, right? Nick: Correct. Speaker 1: Yeah. Nick: Correct. Yeah. And so assets are important obviously, but really the end game for assets in retirement is to generate income. So ideally people will have the combination of both, but having an arbitrary number like a million dollars is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And I know that recently there's been some kind of articles in the news about, I think we just hit the highest percentage of millionaires in the US. Speaker 1: Right. Nick: And even from that perspective, dependent upon the situation, again, a million dollars isn't what it used to be. So it really just all depends. We've had clients that have had five or $6 million going into retirement that when we look at their plan, they're going to burn through that in 15 years because they spend too much. And we've had clients that are retired with five or 600,000, but they have their expenses very much in check, they have no debt and they live within their means and their plan looks great. Speaker 1: Yeah, there you go. I mean there's three of us here on this podcast and it might take a million for one and 500,000 for the other and two and a half million for the other. Right. It all just depends on where you live, how you live, all those sorts of things. So yeah, reply hazy, try again. And really what it comes down to is get a strategy, get a plan, and get the numbers crunched for your specific situation and then you're going to understand exactly what you need to get to. You're going to have a better outline versus just kind of a shaking the Magic Eight Ball. And I think the idea behind some of this too was fun. You know how you guys in the industry know this. There seems like there's always advisors out there that have a little crystal ball on their desk and they like to say, "Let me check the crystal ball," when somebody asks them a question and they're like, "Well it doesn't work today." And that's because it's not a sound way of doing things. So we thought we'd take that kind of analogy and apply it to this week's podcast. So back to you, John. Can I rely on social security for my retirement? John: Say out look not so good. Speaker 1: Right. John: Yeah, definitely not what you want to be banking on. It's a good source to have. Speaker 1: Sure. John: But you do not want it to be your only source. Speaker 1: It's big dollars. I mean it can be big dollars for a lot of people. And I think an interesting question, and I put it this way, is I've got a family member, a loved one who totally survives on social security only, but it's not what she wanted, right? So could you do it? Yes. But is it ideal? No. John: Yeah, no. I think on average social security covers maybe 30, 40% of someone's retirement income. So you have to look at where's the other money coming from. So just planning on social security I would say is not a very good plan. Speaker 1: Very true, very true. Well following that up there, Nick, give us the Magic Eight Ball answer here. Is it wise then to have multiple sources of retirement income? Nick: It is absolutely as imperative as you can get to try to have different sources of income. A conversation that we have with people consistently is that from the perspective of planning, the one thing that we know and that we can absolutely count on every single year, year after year, is that there's going to be change. And so anything that you can do to build in options, build in flexibility, allow yourself to adapt and pivot to what's going on is essential. And part of that is income streams, not only diversifying assets, but diversifying income streams. Speaker 1: Definitely. Right. So you definitely want to have those. Social security is a big piece of it, but it doesn't need to be the only one. You need to have multiple sources of income streams. All right, John, back to you. Can I expect to have fewer expenses in retirement compared to when I'm working? What's the Magic Eight Ball say? John: I'd say don't count on it. Again, I don't know, we've kind of preface this quite a bit and we've even said it today, everyone's different. So we've had some people where expenses have gone up during retirement because they want to vacation more, they want to do more things with the family. So I wouldn't say plan on that necessarily. And the only way to really find out is to do a comprehensive plan, but then there's going to be curveballs that come at you, whether it's health expenses. That tends to not go down as we get older. So maybe something could be dropping off. Speaker 1: Right. Right. John: But you never know what's going to get added. So do your plan as best you can and try to be as accurate as can. But I wouldn't have that be like the bulletproof, like, hey, my expenses are going to drop so I should be good. Speaker 1: Well, that's a great point because a lot of times people say, hey, here's our back of the napkin math. We think if we curtail this a little bit and this a little bit, we can make it work. Right. We can kind of squeak into retirement. But then you get there and you think, I don't want to do that, right? And there's certainly a lot of conversation around regrets that people have when they're talking once they get to retirement and they go, boy, I wish I would've spent more in those early years when my body would've let me go out and do some things that I wanted to. Right. So can I expect fewer expenses? Yeah, probably not, right? Because like you said, things are going to drop off, but other things are going to add and of course don't count on it. I think that was the answer Rhonda Thomas gave me when I asked her to the seventh grade dance, I think she said don't count on it. I think she must have got that from Magic Eight Ball as well. Nick: That's stuck with you. Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Exactly. It stuck with me. I'm still wounded Rhonda, if you're listening. All right, so let's do the next one here. Should I review my retirement plan annually? Nick, what says the Magic Eight Ball? Nick: Without a doubt on that one. Going back to what we talked about earlier, things constantly change. So updating the plan is really important. The most recent example of why that's important has been inflation over the last couple of years. So when we do a plan and we put in an inflation increase every year in expenses, the software still requires us to kind of update those baseline numbers. And so what we found and what we've tried to emphasize to people is that us capturing and updating those baseline numbers every two or three years is really important and gives us a much more accurate projection from the perspective of planning. So,- Speaker 1: Gotcha. Nick: Those annual reviews are important. Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's how you kind of keep track of the expense changes or the income source changes or added a grandchild, want to change this, whatever the case is. So all those annual things are certainly important. Your life's going to change, your plan has to change along with it. All right, John, will my retirement plan be affected by future changes in tax laws? Not to get political, but you have to talk policy and certainly when it comes to taxation, that's going to be part of the conversation. I mean, seems like everything is political these days, but if you're thinking about future changes in tax laws, you're going to have to certainly think along those lines as well. So what says the Magic Eight Ball when it comes to will your plan be affected by it? John: Signs point to yes. Speaker 1: 35 trillion? Maybe. Yeah. John: Yeah. So you definitely want to take that into account. I mean if you look at maybe people that retired in the 70s and then all of a sudden the 80s, your social security is getting taxed, you weren't really anticipating that happening and then,- Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the IRMAA tax, right? That gets a lot of people blindsided. John: Yeah. So you could count on taxes changing. Whether it's going to go up or down, again, we don't have our crystal ball, but we have the Magic Eight Ball here. Something's going to happen and you should be planning for that. One thing you could do when you're running retirement plans is you can have the ability to stress test it, to take a look at it. So definitely plan on it. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you figure, look, regardless of where your political bent is, we've got a lot of debt and so taxes are going to have to change. And even if it's not this particular administration change, this current election, right, God willing, you live long enough in retirement. If you last 20, 25, 30 years in retirement, you're going to see multiple administrations come and go. And that's going to mean multiple tax law changes because they do that every so often. Right. So the odds of that happening are pretty great. So signs point to yes, you should consider how taxation is going to affect you because it is one of the biggest pieces of your retirement strategy. What is that old saying? It's not what you make, it's what you keep, right? So make sure you're talking with qualified professionals like John and Nick when it comes to dealing with all this stuff. Let's do one or two more and then we'll wrap it up. Nick, let's toss this over to you. Let's see here. Should I focus on paying off debt before increasing retirement contributions? Nick: So I would say depending upon the debt, most likely. Speaker 1: Okay. Nick: From the perspective of consumer debt like credit cards, all that kind of stuff,- Speaker 1: Bad debt, right? Nick: That can absolutely, it's hard to argue that that's not unimportant. One thing that can be a slippery slope for people is it kind of tends to depend on their behaviors. We've had clients that have been good income earners but have at different times had debt problems. And in certain ways, whenever they pay off the debt, the debt comes back up and then they kind of find themselves not saving at all. So it's oftentimes kind of a balance of both. One of the most common sorts of comparisons from a perspective of debt is mortgage. We found that over, we had a lot of those conversations when interest rates were really low and we kind of emphasized with people to take advantage of those low rates and that's come to be a pretty beneficial sort of decision. So I would say in order, consumer debt for sure, trying to do both consecutively, both at the same time, obviously ideal, and then just kind of working through the plan and prioritizing what makes the most sense and how to deploy the money. Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, right? I mean, debt's going to be a big component of that as well, and certainly getting rid of that, the higher interest stuff is always a good idea. So the final piece then here guys, and John, we'll let you wrap it up since you started it. Should I consider working with a financial professional as I near retirement? This is kind of a layup for you, but I'll give it to you anyway. What do you think? John: Appreciate that layup. Answer is yes. As you're getting closer to retirement, it becomes even more important to make sure you're working with someone to update the plan or start a plan and take a look at it. I would say you don't have to wait until you're near retirement. I think the answer is yes at any point. Speaker 1: Yeah. John: Even my younger clients, they always appreciate having someone they could talk to and bounce some ideas off of, whether it's not always comprehensive planning, but it's someone you could talk to discuss things. Speaker 1: Exactly. Because there's so many nuances out there and it just continues to grow and get more complex. So certainly not a bad idea at all to get qualified professionals on your side. So if you need some help, reach out to the team at Pfgprivatewealth.com. That's Pfgprivatewealth.com and don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple and Spotify or whatever platform you like using. It's Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick from PFG Private Wealth. And we'll see you next time here on the show and enjoy the Magic Eight Ball. We'll catch you later.   Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. The topics and information discussed during this podcast are not intended to provide tax or legal advice. Investments involve risk, and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed on this podcast. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Insurance products and services are offered and sold through individually licensed and appointed insurance agents.  

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with playwright and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher on Columbo, Sherlock Holmes, favorite mysteries and more!LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Jeffrey Hatcher Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.hatcher.3/The Good Liar (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ljKzFGpPHhwMr. Holmes (Trailer): https://youtu.be/0G1lIBgk4PAStage Beauty (Trailer): https://youtu.be/-uc6xEBfdD0Columbo Clips from “Ashes to Ashes”Clip One: https://youtu.be/OCKECiaFsMQClip Two: https://youtu.be/BbO9SDz9FEcClip Three: https://youtu.be/GlNDAVAwMCIEli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: Can you remember your very first mystery, a movie, book, TV show, play, a mystery that really captured your imagination? Jeffrey: You know, I was thinking about this, and what came to mind was a Disney movie called Emile and the Detectives from 1964. So, I would have been six or seven years old. It's based on a series of German books by Eric Kastner about a young man named Emile and his group of friends who think of themselves as detectives. So, I remember that—I know that might've been the first film. And obviously it's not a play because, you know, little kids don't tend to go to stage thrillers or mysteries and, “Daddy, please take me to Sleuth.But there was a show called Burke's Law that I really loved. Gene Barry played Captain Amos Burke of the Homicide Division in Los Angeles, and he was very rich. That was the bit. The bit was that Captain Burke drove around in a gorgeous Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, and he had a chauffeur. And every mystery was structured classically as a whodunit.In fact, I think every title of every episode was “Who Killed Cock Robin?” “Who Killed Johnny Friendly?” that kind of thing. And they would have a cast of well-known Hollywood actors, so they were all of equal status. Because I always think that's one of the easiest ways to guess the killer is if it's like: Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy, Derek Jacobi, Unknown Guy, Unknown Guy. It's always going to be Derek Jacobi. John: Yeah, it's true. I remember that show. He was really cool. Jim: Well, now I'm going to have to look that up.Jeffrey: It had a great score, and he would gather all of the suspects, you know, at the end of the thing. I think my favorite was when he caught Paul Lynde as a murderer. And, of course, Paul Lynde, you know, kept it very low key when he was dragged off. He did his Alice Ghostly impersonation as he was taken away.John: They did have very similar vocal patterns, those two.Jeffrey: Yep. They're kind of the exact same person. Jim: I never saw them together. John: You might have on Bewitched. Jim: You're probably right.Jeffrey: Well, I might be wrong about this, either Alice Ghostly or Charlotte Ray went to school with Paul Lynde. And Charlotte Ray has that same sound too. You know, kind of warbly thing. Yes. I think they all went to Northwestern in the late 40s and early 50s. So maybe that was a way that they taught actors back then. John: They learned it all from Marion Horne, who had the very same warble in her voice. So, as you got a little older, were there other mysteries that you were attracted to?Jeffrey: Yeah. Luckily, my parents were very liberal about letting me see things that other people probably shouldn't have. I remember late in elementary school, fifth grade or so, I was reading Casino Royale. And one of the teachers said, “Well, you know, most kids, we wouldn't want to have read this, but it's okay if you do.”And I thought, what's that? And I'm so not dangerous; other kids are, well they would be affected oddly by James Bond? But yeah, I, I love spy stuff. You know, The Man from Uncle and The Wild Wild West, all those kind of things. I love James Bond. And very quickly I started reading the major mysteries. I think probably the first big book that I remember, the first novel, was The Hound of the Baskervilles. That's probably an entrance point for a lot of kids. So that's what comes in mind immediately. Jim: I certainly revisit that on—if not yearly basis, at least every few years I will reread The Hound of the Baskervilles. Love that story. That's good. Do you have, Jeffrey, favorite mystery fiction writers?Jeffrey: Oh, sure. But none of them are, you know, bizarre Japanese, Santa Domingo kind of writers that people always pull out of their back pockets to prove how cool they are. I mean, they're the usual suspects. Conan Doyle and Christie and Chandler and Hammett, you know, all of those. John Dickson Carr, all the locked room mysteries, that kind of thing. I can't say that I go very far off in one direction or another to pick up somebody who's completely bizarre. But if you go all the way back, I love reading Wilkie Collins.I've adapted at least one Wilkie Collins, and they read beautifully. You know, terrifically put together, and they've got a lot of blood and thunder to them. I think he called them sensation novels as opposed to mysteries, but they always have some mystery element. And he was, you know, a close friend of Charles Dickens and Dickens said that there were some things that Collins taught him about construction. In those days, they would write their novels in installments for magazines. So, you know, the desire or the need, frankly, to create a cliffhanger at the end of every episode or every chapter seems to have been born then from a capitalist instinct. John: Jeff, I know you studied acting. What inspired the move into playwriting?Jeffrey: I don't think I was a very good actor. I was the kind of actor who always played older, middle aged or older characters in college and high school, like Judge Brack in Hedda Gabler, those kind of people. My dream back in those days was to play Dr. Dysart in Equus and Andrew Wyke in Sleuth. So, I mean, that was my target. And then I moved to New York, and I auditioned for things and casting directors would say, “Well, you know, we actually do have 50 year old actors in New York and we don't need to put white gunk in their hair or anything like that. So, why don't you play your own age, 22 or 23?” And I was not very good at playing 22 or 23. But I'd always done some writing, and a friend of mine, Graham Slayton, who was out at the Playwrights Center here, and we'd gone to college together. He encouraged me to write a play, you know, write one act, and then write a full length. So, I always say this, I think most people go into the theater to be an actor, you know, probably 98%, and then bit by bit, we, you know, we peel off. We either leave the profession completely or we become directors, designers, writers, what have you. So, I don't think it's unnatural what I did. It's very rare to be like a Tom Stoppard who never wanted to act. It's a lot more normal to find the Harold Pinter who, you know, acted a lot in regional theaters in England before he wrote The Caretaker.Jim: Fascinating. Can we talk about Columbo?Jeffrey: Oh, yes, please. Jim: This is where I am so tickled pink for this conversation, because I was a huge and am a huge Peter Falk Columbo fan. I went back and watched the episode Ashes To Ashes, with Patrick McGowan that you created. Tell us how that came about. Jeffrey: I too was a huge fan of Columbo in the 70s. I remember for most of its run, it was on Sunday nights. It was part of that murder mystery wheel with things like Hec Ramsey and McCloud, right? But Columbo was the best of those, obviously. Everything, from the structure—the inverted mystery—to thw guest star of the week. Sometimes it was somebody very big and exciting, like Donald Pleasence or Ruth Gordon, but often it was slightly TV stars on the skids.John: Jack Cassidy, Jim: I was just going to say Jack Cassidy.Jeffrey: But at any rate, yeah, I loved it. I loved it. I remembered in high school, a friend and I doing a parody of Columbo where he played Columbo and I played the murderer of the week. And so many years later, when they rebooted the show in the nineties, my father died and I spent a lot of time at the funeral home with the funeral director. And having nothing to say to the funeral director one day, I said, “Have you got the good stories?”And he told me all these great stories about, you know, bodies that weren't really in the casket and what you can't cremate, et cetera. So, I suddenly had this idea of a Hollywood funeral director to the stars. And, via my agent, I knew Dan Luria, the actor. He's a close friend or was a close friend of Peter's. And so, he was able to take this one-page idea and show it to Peter. And then, one day, I get a phone call and it's, “Uh, hello Jeff, this is Peter Falk calling. I want to talk to you about your idea.” And they flew me out there. It was great fun, because Falk really ran the show. He was the executive producer at that point. He always kind of ran the show. I think he only wrote one episode, the one with Faye Dunaway, but he liked the idea.I spent a lot of time with him, I'd go to his house where he would do his drawings back in the studio and all that. But what he said he liked about it was he liked a new setting, they always liked a murderer and a setting that was special, with clues that are connected to, say, the murderer's profession. So, the Donald Pleasant one about the wine connoisseur and all the clues are about wine. Or the Dick Van Dyke one, where he's a photographer and most of the clues are about photography. So, he really liked that. And he said, “You gotta have that first clue and you gotta have the pop at the end.”So, and we worked on the treatment and then I wrote the screenplay. And then he asked McGoohan if he would do it, and McGoohan said, “Well, if I can direct it too.” And, you know, I've adored McGoohan from, you know, Secret Agent and The Prisoner. I mean, I'd say The Prisoner is like one of my favorite television shows ever. So, the idea that the two of them were going to work together on that script was just, you know, it was incredible. John: Were you able to be there during production at all? Jeffrey: No, I went out there about four times to write, because it took like a year or so. It was a kind of laborious process with ABC and all that, but I didn't go out during the shooting.Occasionally, this was, you know, the days of faxes, I'd get a phone call: “Can you redo something here?” And then I'd fax it out. So, I never met McGoohan. I would only fax with him. But they built this whole Hollywood crematorium thing on the set. And Falk was saying at one point, “I'm getting pushback from Universal that we've got to do all this stuff. We've got to build everything.” And I was saying, “Well, you know, 60 percent of the script takes place there. If you're going to try to find a funeral home like it, you're going to have all that hassle.” And eventually they made the point that, yeah, to build this is going to cost less than searching around Hollywood for the right crematorium, And it had a great cast, you know, it had Richard Libertini and Sally Kellerman, and Rue McClanahan was our murder victim.Jim: I'll tell you every scene that Peter Falk and Mr. McGoohan had together. They looked to me as an actor, like they were having a blast being on together. Jeffrey: They really loved each other. They first met when McGoohan did that episode, By Dawn's Early Light, where he played the head of the military school. It's a terrific episode. It was a great performance. And although their acting styles are completely different, You know, Falk much more, you know, fifties, methody, shambolic. And McGoohan very, you know, his voice cracking, you know, and very affected and brittle. But they really loved each other and they liked to throw each other curveballs.There are things in the, in the show that are ad libs that they throw. There's one bit, I think it's hilarious. It's when Columbo tells the murderer that basically knows he did it, but he doesn't have a way to nail him. And, McGoohan is saying, “So then I suppose you have no case, do you?” And Falk says, “Ah, no, sir, I don't.” And he walks right off camera, you know, like down a hallway. And McGoohan stares off and says, “Have you gone?” And none of that was scripted. Peter just walks off set. And if you watch the episode, they had to dub in McGoohan saying, “Have you gone,” because the crew was laughing at the fact that Peter just strolled away. So McGoohan adlibs that and then they had to cover it later to make sure the sound wasn't screwed up. Jim: Fantastic. John: Kudos to you for that script, because every piece is there. Every clue is there. Everything pays off. It's just it is so tight, and it has that pop at the end that he wanted. It's really an excellent, excellent mystery.Jim: And a terrific closing line. Terrific closing line. Jeffrey: Yeah, that I did right. That was not an ad lib. Jim: It's a fantastic moment. And he, Peter Falk, looks just almost right at the camera and delivers that line as if it's, Hey, check this line out. It was great. Enjoyed every minute of it. Can we, um, can I ask some questions about Sherlock Holmes now?Jeffrey: Oh, yes. Jim: So, I enjoyed immensely Holmes and Watson that I saw a couple summers ago at Park Square. I was completely riveted and had no, absolutely no idea how it was going to pay off or who was who or what. And when it became clear, it was so much fun for me as an audience member. So I know that you have done a number of Holmes adaptations.There's Larry Millet, a St. Paul writer here and I know you adapted him, but as far as I can tell this one, pillar to post was all you. This wasn't an adaptation. You created this out of whole cloth. Am I right on that? Jeffrey: Yes. The, the idea came from doing the Larry Millet one, actually, because Steve Hendrickson was playing Holmes. And on opening night—the day of opening night—he had an aortic aneurysm, which they had to repair. And so, he wasn't able to do the show. And Peter Moore, the director, he went in and played Holmes for a couple of performances. And then I played Holmes for like three performances until Steve could get back. But in the interim, we've sat around saying, “All right, who can we get to play the role for like a week?” And we thought about all of the usual suspects, by which I mean, tall, ascetic looking actors. And everybody was booked, everybody was busy. Nobody could do it. So that's why Peter did it, and then I did it.But it struck me in thinking about casting Holmes, that there are a bunch of actors that you would say, you are a Holmes type. You are Sherlock Holmes. And it suddenly struck me, okay, back in the day, if Holmes were real, if he died—if he'd gone over to the falls of Reichenbach—people probably showed up and say, “Well, I'm Sherlock Holmes.”So, I thought, well, let's take that idea of casting Holmes to its logical conclusion: That a couple of people would come forward and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes,” and then we'd wrap it together into another mystery. And we're sitting around—Bob Davis was playing Watson. And I said, “So, maybe, they're all in a hospital and Watson has to come to figure out which is which. And Bob said, “Oh, of course, Watson's gonna know which one is Holmes.”And that's what immediately gave me the idea for the twist at the end, why Watson wouldn't know which one was Holmes. So, I'm very grateful whenever an idea comes quickly like that, but it depends on Steve getting sick usually. Jim: Well, I thoroughly enjoyed it. If it's ever staged again anywhere, I will go. There was so much lovely about that show, just in terms of it being a mystery. And I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I don't want to give too much away in case people are seeing this at some point, but when it starts to be revealed—when Pierce's character starts talking about the reviews that he got in, in the West End—I I almost wet myself with laughter. It was so perfectly delivered and well written. I had just a great time at the theater that night. Jeffrey: It's one of those things where, well, you know how it is. You get an idea for something, and you pray to God that nobody else has done it. And I couldn't think of anybody having done this bit. I mean, some people have joked and said, it's kind of To Tell the Truth, isn't it? Because you have three people who come on and say, “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” “I'm Sherlock Holmes.” Now surely somebody has done this before, but Nobody had. Jim: Well, it's wonderful. John: It's all in the timing. So, what is the, what's the hardest part about adapting Holmes to this stage?Jeffrey: Well, I suppose from a purist point of view‑by which I mean people like the Baker Street Irregulars and other organizations like that, the Norwegian Explorers here in Minnesota‑is can you fit your own‑they always call them pastiches, even if they're not comic‑can you fit your own Holmes pastiche into the canon?People spend a lot of time working out exactly where Holmes and Watson were on any given day between 1878 and 1930. So, one of the nice things about Holmes and Watson was, okay, so we're going to make it take place during the three-year interregnum when Holmes is pretending to be dead. And it works if you fit Holmes and Watson in between The Final Problem and The Adventure of the Empty House, it works. And that's hard to do. I would say, I mean, I really love Larry Millett's book and all that, but I'm sure it doesn't fit, so to speak. But that's up to you to care. If you're not a purist, you can fiddle around any old way you like. But I think it's kind of great to, to, to have the, the BSI types, the Baker Street Irregular types say, “Yes, this clicked into place.”Jim: So that's the most difficult thing. What's the easiest part?Jeffrey: Well, I think it's frankly the language, the dialogue. Somebody pointed out that Holmes is the most dramatically depicted character in history. More than Robin Hood, more than Jesus Christ. There are more actor versions of Holmes than any other fictional character.We've been surrounded by Holmes speak. Either if we've read the books or seen the movies or seen any of the plays for over 140 years. Right. So, in a way, if you're like me, you kind of absorb that language by osmosis. So, for some reason, it's very easy for me to click into the way I think Holmes talks. That very cerebral, very fast, sometimes complicated syntax. That I find probably the easiest part. Working out the plots, you want them to be Holmesian. You don't want them to be plots from, you know, don't want the case to be solved in a way that Sam Spade would, or Philip Marlowe would. And that takes a little bit of work. But for whatever reason, it's the actor in you, it's saying, all right, if you have to ad lib or improv your way of Sherlock Holmes this afternoon, you know, you'd be able to do it, right? I mean, he really has permeated our culture, no matter who the actor is.Jim: Speaking of great actors that have played Sherlock Holmes, you adapted a movie that Ian McKellen played, and I just watched it recently in preparation for this interview.Having not seen it before, I was riveted by it. His performance is terrific and heartbreaking at the same time. Can we talk about that? How did you come to that project? And just give us everything.Jeffrey: Well, it's based on a book called A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullen, and it's about a very old Sherlock Holmes in Surrey, tending to his bees, as people in Holmesland know that he retired to do. And it involves a couple of cases, one in Japan and one about 20 years earlier in his life that he's trying to remember. And it also has to do with his relationship with his housekeeper and the housekeeper's son. The book was given to me by Anne Carey, the producer, and I worked on it probably off and on for about five years.A lot of time was spent talking about casting, because you had to have somebody play very old. I remember I went to meet with Ralph Fiennes once because we thought, well, Ralph Fiennes could play him at his own age,‑then probably his forties‑and with makeup in the nineties.And Ralph said‑Ralph was in another film that I'd done‑and he said, “Oh, I don't wear all that makeup. That's just far too much.” And I said, “Well, you did in Harry Potter and The English Patient, you kind of looked like a melted candle.” And he said, “Yes, and I don't want to do that again.” So, we always had a very short list of actors, probably like six actors in the whole world And McKellen was one of them and we waited for him to become available And yeah, he was terrific. I'll tell you one funny story: One day, he had a lot of prosthetics, not a lot, but enough. He wanted to build up his cheekbones and his nose a bit. He wanted a bit, he thought his own nose was a bit too potatoish. So, he wanted a more Roman nose. So, he was taking a nap one day between takes. And they brought him in, said, “Ian, it's time for you to do the, this scene,” and he'd been sleeping, I guess, on one side, and his fake cheek and his nose had moved up his face. But he hadn't looked in the mirror, and he didn't know. So he came on and said, “Very well, I'm all ready to go.” And it was like Quasimodo.It's like 5:52 and they're supposed to stop shooting at six. And there was a mad panic of, Fix Ian's face! Get that cheekbone back where it's supposed to be! Knock that nose into place! A six o'clock, we go into overtime!” But it was very funny that he hadn't noticed it. You kind of think you'd feel if your own nose or cheekbone had been crushed, but of course it was a makeup. So, he didn't feel anything. Jim: This is just the, uh, the actor fan boy in me. I'm an enormous fan of his work straight across the board. Did you have much interaction with him and what kind of fella is he just in general?Jeffrey: He's a hoot. Bill Condon, the director, said, “Ian is kind of methody. So, when you see him on set, he'll be very decorous, you know, he'll be kind of like Sherlock Holmes.” And it was true, he goes, “Oh, Jeffrey Hatcher, it's very good to meet you.” And he was kind of slow talking, all that. Ian was like 72 then, so he wasn't that old. But then when it was all over, they were doing all those--remember those ice Dumps, where people dump a tub of ice on you? You have these challenges? A the end of shooting, they had this challenge, and Ian comes out in short shorts, and a bunch of ballet dancers surrounds him. And he's like, “Alright, everyone, let's do the ice challenge.” And, he turned into this bright dancer. He's kind of a gay poster boy, you know, ever since he was one of the most famous coming out of the last 20 some years. So, you know, he was suddenly bright and splashy and, you know, all that old stuff dropped away. He has all of his headgear at his house and his townhouse. He had a party for us at the end of shooting. And so, there's a Gandalf's weird hat and there's Magneto's helmet, you know, along with top hats and things like that. And they're all kind of lined up there. And then people in the crew would say, can I take a picture of you as Gandalf? “Well, why, of course,” and he does all that stuff. So no, he's wonderful. Jim: You do a very good impression as well. That was great. Now, how did you come to the project, The Good Liar, which again, I watched in preparation for this and was mesmerized by the whole thing, especially the mystery part of it, the ending, it was brilliant.How did you come to that project?Jeffrey: Well, again, it was a book and Warner Brothers had the rights to it. And because Bill and I had worked on Mr. Holmes--Bill Condon--Bill was attached to direct. And so I went in to talk about how to adapt it.This is kind of odd. It's again based in McKellen. In the meeting room at Warner Brothers, there was a life size version of Ian as Gandalf done in Legos. So, it was always, it'll be Ian McKellen and somebody in The Good Liar. Ian as the con man. And that one kind of moved very quickly, because something changed in Bill Condon's schedule. Then they asked Helen Mirren, and she said yes very quickly.And it's a very interesting book, but it had to be condensed rather a lot. There's a lot of flashbacks and going back and forth in time. And we all decided that the main story had to be about this one con that had a weird connection to the past. So, a lot of that kind of adaptation work is deciding what not to include, so you can't really be completely faithful to a book that way. But I do take the point with certain books. When my son was young, he'd go to a Harry Potter movie, and he'd get all pissed off. Pissed off because he'd say Dobby the Elf did a lot more in the book.But if it's a book that's not quite so well-known—The Good Liar isn't a terribly well-known book, nor was A Slight Trick of the Mind--you're able to have a lot more room to play. Jim: It's a very twisty story. Now that you're talking about the book, I'll probably have to go get the book and read it just for comparison. But what I saw on the screen, how did you keep it--because it was very clear at the end--it hits you like a freight train when it all sort of unravels and you start seeing all of these things. How did you keep that so clear for an audience? Because I'll admit, I'm not a huge mystery guy, and I'm not the brightest human, and yet I was able to follow that story completely.Jeffrey: Well, again, I think it's mostly about cutting things, I'm sure. And there are various versions of the script where there are a lot of other details. There's probably too much of one thing or another. And then of course, you know, you get in the editing room and you lose a couple of scenes too. These kinds of things are very tricky. I'm not sure that we were entirely successful in doing it, because you say, which is more important, surprise or suspense? Hitchcock used to have that line about, suspense is knowing there's a bomb under the table. And you watch the characters gather at the table. As opposed to simply having a bomb blow up and you didn't know about it.So, we often went back and forth about Should we reveal that the Helen Mirren character knows that Ian's character is doing something bad? Or do we try to keep it a secret until the end? But do you risk the audience getting ahead of you? I don't mind if the audience is slightly ahead. You know, it's that feeling you get in the theater where there's a reveal and you hear a couple of people say, “Oh, I knew it and they guessed it may be a minute before. But you don't want to get to the point where the audience is, you know, 20 minutes or a half an hour ahead of you.Jim: I certainly was not, I was not in any way. It unfolded perfectly for me in terms of it being a mystery and how it paid off. And Helen Mirren was brilliant. In fact, for a long time during it, I thought they were dueling con men, the way it was set up in the beginning where they were both entering their information and altering facts about themselves.I thought, “Oh, well, they're both con men and, and now we're going to see who is the better con man in the end.” And so. when it paid off. In a way different sort of way, it was terrific for me. Absolutely. Jeffrey: Well, and I thank you. But in a way, they were both con men. Jim: Yes, yes. But she wasn't a professional con man.Jeffrey: She wasn't just out to steal the money from him. She was out for something else. She was out for vengeance. Jim: Yes. Very good. Very, if you haven't seen it, The Good Liar folks, don't wait. I got it on Amazon prime and so can you.Jeffrey: I watched them do a scene, I was over there for about five days during the shooting.And watching the two of them work together was just unbelievable. The textures, the tones, the little lifts of the eyebrow, the shading on one word versus another. Just wonderful, wonderful stuff. Jim: Yeah. I will say I am a huge Marvel Cinematic Universe fan along with my son. We came to those together and I'm a big fan of that sort of movie. So I was delighted by this, because it was such a taut story. And I was involved in every second of what was going on and couldn't quite tell who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and how is this going to work and who's working with who?And it was great. And in my head, I was comparing my love for that sort of big blow it up with rayguns story to this very cerebral, internal. And I loved it, I guess is what I'm saying. And, I am, I think, as close to middle America as you're going to find in terms of a moviegoer. And I thought it was just dynamite. Jeffrey: It was very successful during the pandemic--so many things were when people were streaming--but it was weirdly successful when it hit Amazon or Netflix or whatever it was. And, I think you don't have to be British to understand two elderly people trying to find a relationship. And then it turns out that they both have reasons to hate and kill each other. But nonetheless, there is still a relationship there. So, I pictured a lot of lonely people watching The Good Liar and saying, “Yeah, I'd hang out with Ian McKellen, even if he did steal all my money.” John: Well, speaking of movies, I am occasionally handed notes here while we're live on the air from my wife. And she wants you to just say something about the adaptation you did of your play, Stage Beauty, and what that process was like and how, how that process went.Jeffrey: That was terrific because, primarily Richard Eyre--the director who used to run the National Theater and all that--because he's a theater man and the play's about theater. I love working with Bill Condon and I've loved working with Lassa Hallstrom and other people, but Richard was the first person to direct a film of any of my stuff. And he would call me up and say, “Well, we're thinking of offering it to Claire Danes.” or we're thinking…And usually you just hear later, Oh, somebody else got this role. But the relationship was more like a theater director and a playwright. I was there on set for rehearsals and all that.Which I haven't in the others. No, it was a wonderful experience, but I think primarily because the, the culture of theater saturated the process of making it and the process of rehearsing it and—again--his level of respect. It's different in Hollywood, everybody's very polite, they know they can fire you and you know, they can fire you and they're going to have somebody else write the dialogue if you're not going to do it, or if you don't do it well enough. In the theater, we just don't do that. It's a different world, a different culture, different kind of contracts too. But Richard really made that wonderful. And again, the cast that he put together: Billy Crudup and Claire and Rupert Everett and Edward Fox and Richard Griffiths. I remember one day when I was about to fly home, I told Richard Griffiths what a fan Evan-- my son, Evan--was of him in the Harry Potter movie. And he made his wife drive an hour to come to Shepperton with a photograph of him as Mr. Dursley that he could autograph for my son. John: Well, speaking of stage and adaptations, before we go into our lightning round here, you did two recent adaptations of existing thrillers--not necessarily mysteries, but thrillers--one of which Hitchcock made into a movie, which are Dial M for Murder and Wait Until Dark. And I'm just wondering what was that process for you? Why changes need to be made? And what kind of changes did you make?Jeffrey: Well, in both cases, I think you could argue that no, changes don't need to be made. They're wildly successful plays by Frederick Knott, and they've been successful for, you know, alternately 70 or 60 years.But in both cases, I got a call from a director or an artistic director saying, “We'd like to do it, but we'd like to change this or that.” And I'm a huge fan of Frederick Knott. He put things together beautifully. The intricacies of Dial M for Murder, you don't want to screw around with. And there are things in Wait Until Dark having to do just with the way he describes the set, you don't want to change anything or else the rather famous ending won't work. But in both cases, the women are probably not the most well drawn characters that he ever came up with. And Wait Until Dark, oddly, they're in a Greenwich Village apartment, but it always feels like they're really in Westchester or in Terre Haute, Indiana. It doesn't feel like you're in Greenwich Village in the 60s, especially not in the movie version with Audrey Hepburn. So, the director, Matt Shackman, said, why don't we throw it back into the 40s and see if we can have fun with that. And so it played out: The whole war and noir setting allowed me to play around with who the main character was. And I know this is a cliche to say, well, you know, can we find more agency for female characters in old plays or old films? But in a sense, it's true, because if you're going to ask an actress to play blind for two hours a night for a couple of months, it can't just be, I'm a blind victim. And I got lucky and killed the guy. You've got a somewhat better dialogue and maybe some other twists and turns. nSo that's what we did with Wait Until Dark. And then at The Old Globe, Barry Edelstein said, “well, you did Wait Until Dark. What about Dial? And I said, “Well, I don't think we can update it, because nothing will work. You know, the phones, the keys. And he said, “No, I'll keep it, keep it in the fifties. But what else could you What else could you do with the lover?”And he suggested--so I credit Barry on this--why don't you turn the lover played by Robert Cummings in the movie into a woman and make it a lesbian relationship? And that really opened all sorts of doors. It made the relationship scarier, something that you really want to keep a secret, 1953. And I was luckily able to find a couple of other plot twists that didn't interfere with any of Knott's original plot.So, in both cases, I think it's like you go into a watch. And the watch works great, but you want the watch to have a different appearance and a different feel when you put it on and tick a little differently. John: We've kept you for a way long time. So, let's do this as a speed round. And I know that these questions are the sorts that will change from day to day for some people, but I thought each of us could talk about our favorite mysteries in four different mediums. So, Jeff, your favorite mystery novel”Jeffrey: And Then There Were None. That's an easy one for me. John: That is. Jim, do you have one?Jim: Yeah, yeah, I don't read a lot of mysteries. I really enjoyed a Stephen King book called Mr. Mercedes, which was a cat and mouse game, and I enjoyed that quite a bit. That's only top of mind because I finished it recently.John: That counts. Jim: Does it? John: Yeah. That'll count. Jim: You're going to find that I am so middle America in my answers. John: That's okay. Mine is--I'm going to cheat a little bit and do a short story--which the original Don't Look Now that Daphne du Murier wrote, because as a mystery, it ties itself up. Like I said earlier, I like stuff that ties up right at the end. And it literally is in the last two or three sentences of that short story where everything falls into place. Jeff, your favorite mystery play? I can be one of yours if you want. Jeffrey: It's a battle between Sleuth or Dial M for Murder. Maybe Sleuth because I always wanted to be in it, but it's probably Dial M. But it's also followed up very quickly by Death Trap, which is a great comedy-mystery-thriller. It's kind of a post-modern, Meta play, but it's a play about the play you're watching. John: Excellent choices. My choice is Sleuth. You did have a chance to be in Sleuth because when I directed it, you're the first person I asked. But your schedule wouldn't let you do it. But you would have been a fantastic Andrew Wyke. I'm sorry our timing didn't work on that. Jeffrey: And you got a terrific Andrew in Julian Bailey, but if you wanted to do it again, I'm available. John: Jim, you hear that? Jim: I did hear that. Yes, I did hear that. John: Jim, do you have a favorite mystery play?Jim: You know, it's gonna sound like I'm sucking up, but I don't see a lot of mystery plays. There was a version of Gaslight that I saw with Jim Stoll as the lead. And he was terrific.But I so thoroughly enjoyed Holmes and Watson and would love the opportunity to see that a second time. I saw it so late in the run and it was so sold out that there was no coming back at that point to see it again. But I would love to see it a second time and think to myself, well, now that you know what you know, is it all there? Because my belief is it is all there. John: Yeah. Okay. Jeff, your favorite TV mystery?Jeffrey: Oh, Columbo. That's easy. Columbo.John: I'm gonna go with Poker Face, just because the pace on Poker Face is so much faster than Columbo, even though it's clearly based on Columbo. Jim, a favorite TV mystery?Jim: The Rockford Files, hands down. John: Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. Last question all around. Jeff, your favorite mystery movie? Jeffrey: Laura. Jim: Ah, good one. John: I'm going to go with The Last of Sheila. If you haven't seen The Last of Sheila, it's a terrific mystery directed by Herbert Ross, written by Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins. Fun little Stephen Sondheim trivia. The character of Andrew Wyke and his house were based on Stephen Sondheim. Jeffrey: Sondheim's townhouse has been for sale recently. I don't know if somebody bought it, but for a cool seven point something million, you're going to get it. John: All right. Let's maybe pool our money. Jim, your favorite mystery movie.Jim: I'm walking into the lion's den here with this one. Jeffrey, I hope this is okay, but I really enjoyed the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies. And I revisit the second one in that series on a fairly regular basis, The Game of Shadows. I thought I enjoyed that a lot. Your thoughts on those movies quickly? Jeffrey: My only feeling about those is that I felt they were trying a little too hard not to do some of the traditional stuff. I got it, you know, like no deer stalker, that kind of thing. But I thought it was just trying a tad too hard to be You know, everybody's very good at Kung Fu, that kind of thing.Jim: Yes. And it's Sherlock Holmes as a superhero, which, uh, appeals to me. Jeffrey: I know the producer of those, and I know Guy Ritchie a little bit. And, I know they're still trying to get out a third one. Jim: Well, I hope they do. I really hope they do. Cause I enjoyed that version of Sherlock Holmes quite a bit. I thought it was funny and all of the clues were there and it paid off in the end as a mystery, but fun all along the road.Jeffrey: And the main thing they got right was the Holmes and Watson relationship, which, you know, as anybody will tell you, you can get a lot of things wrong, but get that right and you're more than two thirds there.

Ever wondered what it takes to transform a struggling business into a thriving success story?

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with the writer of a great new book, “London After Midnight: The Lost Film,” a book about the classic lost Lon Chaney film.LINKS A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Daniel's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/p/London-After-Midnight-The-Lost-Film-100075993768254/Buy the Book “London After Midnight: The Lost Film”: https://www.amazon.com/London-After-Midnight-Lost-Film/dp/1399939890Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastTRANSCRIPTJohn: So, Daniel, when did you first become aware of London After Midnight? Daniel: I was about seven years old when I first stumbled into Lon Chaney through my love of all things Universal horror, and just that whole plethora of characters and actors that you just knew by name, but hadn't necessarily seen away from the many still photographs of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And the Phantom was the one to really spark my interest. But this was prior to eBay. I couldn't see the film of Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera for a year. So, I kind of had the ultimate build to books and documentaries, just teasing me, teasing me all the time. And when I eventually did watch a few documentaries, the one thing that they all had in common was the name Lon Chaney. I just thought I need to learn more about this character Lon Chaney, because he just found someone of superhuman proportions just who have done all of these crazy diverse characters. And, that's where London After Midnight eventually peeked out at me and, occupied a separate interest as all the Chaney characterizations do.John: So how did you get into the Universal films? Were you watching them on VHS? Were they on tv? Did the DVDs happen by then?Daniel: I was still in the VHS days. My dad is a real big fan of all this as well. So he first saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula, on TV when he was a kid. And prior to me being born he had amassed a huge VHS collection and a lot of those had Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Henry Hull, Claude Rains, Vincent Price, what have you.And a lot of them were dedicated to Universal horrors. And as a young curious kid, my eyes eventually crossed these beautiful cases and I really wanted to watch them. I think my first one I ever watched was The Mummy's Tomb or Curse of the Mummy. And it's just grown ever since, really.John: You're starting at the lesser end of the Universal monsters. It's like someone's starting the Marx Brothers at The Big Store and going, "oh, these are great. I wonder if there's anything better?" Jim: Well, I kinda like the fact that you have come by this fascination, honestly, as my father would say. You sort of inherited the family business, if you will. The book is great. The book is just great. And I'll be honest, I had no, except for recording the novel that John wrote, I really had no frame of reference for London after Midnight.John: Well, Jim, were you a monster guy? Were you a Universal Monster kid?Jim: Oh yeah. I mean, I had all the models. I love all of that, and certainly knew about Lon Chaney as the Phantom of the Opera, as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I knew he was the man with a thousand faces. I knew he, when he died, he wrote JR. on his makeup kit and gave it to his kid. So, I knew stuff. But London after Midnight I didn't know at all, except for the sort of iconic makeup and that image, which I was familiar with. What was the inspiration for you in terms of writing this book?Daniel: Like you say, I really had no immediate go-to reference for London after Midnight, away from one or two images in a book. Really clearly they were very impactful images of Chaney, skulking around the old haunted mansion with Edna Tichenor by his side with the lantern, the eyes, the teeth, the cloak, the top hat, the webs, everything. Pretty much everything that embodies a good atmospheric horror movie, but obviously we couldn't see it.So that is all its fangs had deepened itself into my bloodstream at that point, just like, why is it lost? Why can't I see it? And again, the term lost film was an alien concept to me at a young age. I've always been a very curious child. Anything that I don't know or understand that much, even things I do understand that well, I always have to try to find out more, 'cause I just can't accept that it's like a bookend process. It begins and then it ends. And that was the thing with London after Midnight. Everything I found in books or in little interviews, they were just all a bit too brief. And I just thought there has to be a deeper history here, as there are with many of the greatest movies of all time. But same with the movies that are more obscure. There is a full history there somewhere because, 'cause a film takes months to a year to complete.It was definitely a good challenge for me. When we first had our first home computer, it was one of those very few early subjects I was typing in like crazy to try to find out everything that I could. And, that all incubated in my little filing cabinet, which I was able to call upon years later.Some things which were redundant, some things which I had the only links to that I had printed off in advance quite, sensibly so, but then there were certain things that just had lots of question marks to me. Like, what year did the film perish? How did it perish? The people who saw the film originally?And unlike a lot of Chaney films, which have been covered in immense detail, London after Midnight, considering it's the most famous of all lost films, still for me, had major holes in it that I just, really wanted to know the answers to. A lot of those answers, eventually, I found, even people who knew and institutions that knew information to key events like famous MGM Fire, they were hard pressed to connect anything up, in regards to the film. It was like a jigsaw puzzle. I had all these amazing facts. However, none of them kind of made sense with each other.My favorite thing is researching and finding the outcomes to these things. So that's originally what spiraled me into the storm of crafting this, initial dissertation that I set myself, which eventually became so large. I had to do it as a book despite, I'd always wanted to do a book as a kid.When you see people that you idolize for some reason, you just want to write a book on them. Despite, there had been several books on Lon Chaney. But I just always knew from my childhood that I always wanted to contribute a printed volume either on Chaney or a particular film, and London after Midnight seemed to present the opportunity to me.I really just didn't want it to be a rehash of everything that we had seen before or read before in other accounts or in the Famous Monsters of Filmland Magazine, but just with a new cover. So, I thought I would only do a book if I could really contribute a fresh new perspective on the subject, which I hope hopefully did.John: Oh, you absolutely did. And this is an exhaustive book and a little exhausting. There's a ton of stuff in here. You mentioned Famous Monster of the Filmland, which is where I first saw that image. There's at least one cover of the magazine that used that image. And Forrest Ackerman had some good photos and would use them whenever he could and also would compare them to Mark the Vampire, the remake, partially because I think Carol Borland was still alive and he could interview her. And he talked about that remake quite a bit. But that iconic image that he put on the cover and whenever he could in the magazine-- Jim and I were talking before you came on, Daniel, about in my mind when you think of Lon Chaney, there's three images that come to mind: Phantom of the Opera, Quasimoto, and this one. And I think this one, the Man in the Beaver hat probably is the most iconic of his makeups, because, 'cause it is, it's somehow it got adopted into the culture as this is what you go to when it's a creepy guy walking around. And that's the one that everyone remembers. Do you have any idea, specifically what his process was for making that look, because it, it is I think ultimately a fairly simple design. It's just really clever.Daniel: Yes, it probably does fall into the category of his more simplistic makeups. But, again, Chaney did a lot of things simplistic-- today --were never seen back then in say, 1927. Particularly in the Phantom of the Opera's case in 1925, in which a lot of that makeup today would be done through CG, in terms of trying to eliminate the nose or to make your lips move to express dialogue. Chaney was very fortunate to have lived in the pantomime era, where he didn't have to rely on how his voice would sound, trying to talk through those dentures, in which case the makeup would probably have to have been more tamed to allow audio recorded dialogue to properly come through.But with regards to the beaver hat makeup, he had thin wires that fitted around his eyes to give it a more hypnotic stare. The teeth, which he had constructed by a personal dentist, eventually had a wire attached to the very top that held the corners of his mouth, opening to a nice curved, fixated, almost joker like grin.You can imagine with the monocles around his eyes, he was thankful there probably wasn't that much wind on a closed set, because he probably couldn't have closed his eyes that many times. But a lot of these things become spoken about and detailed over time with mythic status. That he had to have his eyes operated on to achieve the constant widening of his eyelids. Or the teeth -- he could only wear the teeth for certain periods of time before accidentally biting his tongue or his lips, et cetera. But Chaney certainly wasn't a sadist, with himself, with his makeups. He was very professional. Although he did go through undoubtedly a lot of discomfort, especially probably the most, explicit case would be for the Hunchback of Notre Dame, in which his whole body is crooked down into a stooped position.But, with London After Midnight, I do highly suspect that the inspiration for that makeup in general came from the Dracula novel. And because MGM had not acquired the rights to the Dracula novel, unlike how Universal acquired the rights of the Hunchback or, more importantly, Phantom of the Opera, by which point Gaston Leroux was still alive.It was just a loose adaptation of Dracula. But nevertheless, when you read the description of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel, he does bear a similarity to Chaney's vampire, in which it's the long hair, a mouth full of sharp teeth, a ghastly pale palor and just dressed all in black and carries around a lantern.Whereas Bela Lugosi takes extraordinary leaps and turns away from the Stoker novel. But it must have definitely had an impact at the time, enough for MGM to over-market the image of Chaney's vampire, which only appears in the film for probably just under four minutes, compared to his detective disguise, which is the real main character of the film.Although the thing we all wanna see is Cheney moving about as the vampire and what facial expressions he pulled. It's just something that we just want to see because it's Lon Chaney.John: Right. And it makes you wonder if he had lived and had gotten to play Dracula, he kind of boxed himself into a corner, then if he'd already used the look from the book, you wonder what he would've come up with, if Lugosi hadn't done it, and if Chaney had had been our first Dracula.Jim: You know, the other thing that I think of strictly like through my actor filter is here's a guy who -- take Hunchback or Phantom or even this thing -- whatever process he went through to put that makeup on, you know, was hours of work, I'm sure. Hunchback several hours of work to get to that, that he did himself, and then they'd film all day.So, on top of, I mean, I just think that that's like, wow, when you think about today where somebody might go into a makeup chair and have two or three people working on them to get the look they want. Even if it took a few hours, that person is just sitting there getting the makeup done. He's doing all of this, and then turns in a full day, uh, in front of the cameras, which to me is like, wow, that's incredible.Daniel: Definitely, it's like two jobs in one. I imagine for an actor it must be really grueling in adapting to a makeup, especially if it's a heavy makeup where it covers the whole of your head or crushes down your nose, changes your lips, the fumes of chemicals going into your eyes.But then by the end of it, I imagine you are quite exhausted from just your head adapting to that. But then you have to go out and act as well. With Chaney, I suppose he could be more of a perfectionist than take as much time as he wanted within reason. And then once he came to the grueling end of it all, he's actually gotta go out and act countless takes. Probably repair a lot of the makeup as well after, after a couple of takes, certainly with things like the Hunchback or the Phantom of the Opera.John: And, you know, it's not only is he doing the makeup and acting, but in, you know, not so much in London After Midnight, but in Phantom of the Opera, he is quite athletic. When the phantom moves, he really moves. He's not stooped. He's got a lot of energy to him and he's got a makeup on that, unlike the Quasimoto makeup, what he's attempting to do with the phantom is, reductive. He's trying to take things away from his face.Daniel: Mm-hmm.John: And he's using all the tricks he knows and lighting to make that happen, but that means he's gotta hit particular marks for the light to hit it just right. And for you to see that his face is as, you know, skull-like as he made it. When you see him, you know, in London After Midnight as the professor inspector character, he has got a normal full man's face. It's a real face. Much like his son, he had a kind of a full face and what he was able to do with a phantom and take all that away, and be as physical as he was, is just phenomenal. I mean, he was a really, besides the makeup, he was a really good actor.Daniel: Oh, definitely. Jim: I agree with that completely. I kind of in what I watched, I wonder if he was the makeup artist, but not the actor and he did exactly the same makeup on somebody else. And so we had the same image. If those things would've resonated with us the way they do today. I think it had everything to do with who he was and his abilities in addition to the incredible makeup. He was just a tremendous performer.Daniel: Absolutely. He was a true multitasker. In his early days of theater, he was not only an actor, but he was a choreographer. He had a lot of jobs behind the scenes as well. Even when he had become a star in his own time, he would still help actors find the character within them. like Norma Sheera, et cetera. People who were kind of new to the movie making scene and the directors didn't really have that much patience with young actors or actresses. Whereas Chaney, because of his clout in the industry, no one really interfered with Chaney's authority on set. But he would really help actors find the character, find the emotion, 'cause it was just all about how well you translate it over for the audience, as opposed to the actor feeling a certain way that convinces themselves that they're the character. Chaney always tried to get the emotions across to the audience. Patsy Ruth Miller, who played Esemerelda in in the Hunchback, said that Chaney directed the film more than the director actually did.The director was actually even suggested by Chaney. So, Chaney really had his hands everywhere in the making of a film. And Patsy Ruth Miller said the thing that she learned from him was that it's the actress's job to make the audience feel how the character's meant to be feeling, and not necessarily the actor to feel what they should be feeling based on the script and the settings and everything.So I think, that's why Chaney in particular stands out, among all of the actors of his time.John: I think he would've transitioned really well into sound. I think, he had everything necessary to make that transition.Jim: There's one sound picture with him in it, isn't there, doesn't he? Doesn't he play a ventriloquist? John: I believe so.Daniel: Yes, it was a remake of The Unholy Three that he had made in 1925 as Echo the ventriloquist, and the gangster. And yes, by the time MGM had decided to pursue talkies -- also, funny enough, they were one of the last studios to transition to, just because they were the most, one, probably the most dominant studio in all of Hollywood, that they didn't feel the pressure to compete with the burgeoning talkie revolution.So they could afford to take their time, they could release a talkie, but then they could release several silent films and the revenue would still be amazing for the studio. Whereas other studios probably had to conform really quick just because they didn't have the star system, that MGM shamelessly flaunted. And several Chaney films had been transitioned to sound at this point with or without Chaney. But for Chaney himself, because he himself was the special effect, it was guaranteed to be a winner even if it had been an original story that isn't as remembered today strictly because people get to hear the thing that's been denied them for all this time, which is Chaney's voice. And he would've transitioned very easily to talkies is because he had a very rich, deep voice, which, coming from theater, he had to have had, in terms of doing dialogue. He wasn't someone like a lot of younger actors who had started out predominantly in feature films who could only pantomime lines. Chaney actually knew how to deliver dialogue, so it did feel natural and it didn't feel read off the page.And he does about five voices in The Unholy Three. So MGM was truly trying to market, his voice for everything that they could. As Mrs. O'Grady, his natural voice, he imitates a parrot and a girl. And yeah, he really would've flourished in the sound era. Jim: Yeah. John: Any surprises, as it sounds like you were researching this for virtually your whole life, but were there any surprises that you came across, as you really dug in about the film?Daniel: With regards to London after Midnight, the main surprise was undoubtedly the -- probably the star chapter of the whole thing -- which is the nitrate frames from an actual destroyed print of the film itself, which sounds crazy to even being able to say it. But, yeah the nitrate frames themselves presented a quandary of questions that just sent me into a whole nother research mode trying to find out where these impossible images came from, who they belonged to, why they even existed, why they specifically existed.Because, looking for something that, you know, you are told doesn't exist. And then to find it, you kind of think someone is watching over you, planting this stuff as though it's the ultimate tease. To find a foreign movie poster for London After Midnight would be one thing, but to find actual pieces of the lost film itself. It was certainly the most out of body experience I've ever had. Just to find something that I set out to find, but then you find it and you still can't believe that you've actually found it.John: How did you find it?Daniel: I had connections with a few foreign archives who would befriend me and took to my enthusiasm with the silent era, and specifically Chaney and all the stars connected to Chaney films.And, quite early on I was told that there were a few photo albums that had various snippets of silent films from Chaney. They didn't really go into what titles these were, 'cause they were just all a jumble. All I knew is that they came from (garbled) widow. And he had acquired prints of the whole films from various, I suppose, junk stores in Spain.But not being a projectionist, he just purely took them at the face value that he just taken the images and snipping them up and putting them in photo albums, like how you would just do with photographs. And then the rest of the material was sadly discarded by fire. So, all we were left with were these snipped relics, survivors almost to several Chaney lost films. Some of them not lost, but there were films like The Phantom of the Opera in there, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mockery, The Unknown. But then there were several lost films such as London After Midnight, the Big City, Thunder. And All the Brothers were Valiant, which are mainly other than Thunder are all totally complete lost films.So, to find this little treasure trove, it was just finding out what the images meant and connecting them up, trying to put them in some sort of chronological scholarly order. Grueling, but it was very fun at the same time. And because I had identified myself with all of these surviving production stills from the film -- a lot of them, which formed the basis of the 2002 reconstruction by Turner Classic Movies -- it didn't take me too long to identify what scenes these surviving nitrate frames were from. But there were several frames which had sets that I recognized and costumes that I recognized, but in the photographic stills, they don't occupy the same space at the same time. So, it's like the two separate elements had crossed over. So that left me with a scholarly, question of what I was looking at. I was able to go back and, sort of rectify certain wrongs that have been accepted throughout the sixties as being the original, say, opening to London after Midnight. So I've, been able to disprove a few things that have made the film, I suppose, a bit more puzzling to audiences. Some audiences didn't really get what the plot was to begin with. So, it was nice to actually put a bit more order to the madness finally.John: At what point did you come across the original treatment and the script?Daniel: The treatment and the script, they came from a private collector who had bought them at auction a number of years ago who I was able to thankfully contact, and they still had the two documents in question. I had learned through Philip J Riley's previous books on London after Midnight that he had the two latter drafts of the script, the second edition and the third draft edition.And, again, the question of why and where. I just always wondered where that first draft of the script was, hoping it would contain new scenes, and open new questions for me and to study. And once I've managed to find those two documents, they did present a lot of new, perspectives and material that added to the fuller plot of the original hypnotist scenario, as opposed to the shortened, time efficient London After Midnight film that was ultimately delivered to audiences. So again, it helped to put a little bit more order to the madness.Jim: You found an actual piece of the film that you were able to, somebody got images from it? And then you found the scripts? But the images are terrific and they're all in your book. They came from what exactly?Daniel: The just below 20 images of the film came from originally a distribution print, a Spanish distribution print, from about 1928. Originally, they were on 35 millimeter indicating that they were from the studio and as is with a lot of silent films that have been found in foreign archives.Normally when a film is done with its distribution, it would have to be returned to the original studio to be destroyed, except for the original negative and a studio print, because there is no reason why a studio would need to keep the thousands of prints when they have the pristine copy in their vault. But, in a lot of smaller theater cases, in order to save money on the postage of the shipping, they would just basically declare that they had destroyed the film on the studio's behalf. There was no record system with this stuff and that's how a lot of these films ended up in the basements of old theaters, which are eventually when they closed, the assets were sold off to collectors or traveling showmen. And eventually these films found their ways into archives or again, private collections. Some of which people know what they have.A lot of times they don't know what they have because they're more obsessed with, naturally, more dedicated to preserving the films of their own culture that was shown at the time, as opposed to a foreign American title, which they probably assume they already have a copy of. But it's how a lot of these films get found.And, with the London After Midnight, example, there were the images that I found spanned the entire seven reels, because they came from different points in the film. It wasn't a single strip of film, of a particular scene. Having thankfully the main source that we have for London After Midnight is the cutting continuity, which is the actual film edited down shot for shot, length for length.And it describes, briefly, although descriptive enough, what is actually in each and every single shot of the film. And comparing the single frame images from the film with this document, I was able to identify at what point these frames came from during the film, which again spanned the entire seven reels, indicating that a complete seven reel version of the film had gotten out under the studio system at one point.As is the case, I'm assuming, 'cause these came from the same collection, I'm assuming it was the same with the other lost Chaney films that again, sadly only survive in snippet form.John: It's like somebody was a collector and his wife said, "well, we don't have room for all this. Just take the frames you like and we'll get rid of the rest of it." So, you mentioned in passing the 2002 reconstruction that Turner Classic Movies did using the existing stills. I don't know if they were working from any of the scripts or not. That was the version I originally saw when I was working on writing, those portions of The Misers Dream that mentioned London After Midnight. Based on what you know now, how close is that reconstruction and where do you think they got it right and where'd they get it wrong?Daniel: The 2002, reconstruction, while a very commendable production, it does stray from the original edited film script. Again, the problem that they clearly faced on that production is that there were not enough photographed scenes to convey all the photographed scenes from the film. So what they eventually fell into the trap of doing was having to reuse the same photograph to sometimes convey two separate scenes, sometimes flipping the image to appear on the opposite side of the camera. And, because of the certain lack of stills in certain scenes cases, they had to rewrite them.And sometimes a visual scene had to have been replaced with an inter-title card, merely describing what had happened or describing a certain period in time, as opposed to showing a photograph of what we're meant to be seeing as opposed to just reading. So, they did the best with what they had.But since then, there have been several more images crop up in private collections or in the archives. So, unless a version of the film gets found, it's certainly an endeavor that could be revisited, I think, and either do a new visual reconstruction of sort, or attempt some sort remake of the film even.Jim: That's an idea. John: They certainly have the materials to do that. I've got an odd question. There's one famous image, a still image from the film, showing Chaney as Professor Burke, and he is reaching out to the man in the beaver hat whose back is to us. Is that a promo photo? Spoiler alert, Burke is playing the vampire in the movie. He admits that that's him. So, he never would've met the character. What is the story behind that photo?Daniel: There are actually three photographs depicting that, those characters that you described. There are the two photographs which show Chaney in the Balfor mansion seemingly directing a cloaked, top hatted figure with long hair, with its back towards us. And then there is another photograph of Chaney in the man in the beaver hat disguise with a seemingly twin right beside him outside of a door.Basically the scenes in the film in which Chaney appear to the Hamlin residents, the people who are being preyed upon by the alleged vampires, the scenes where Chaney and the vampire need to coexist in the same space or either appear to be in the same vicinity to affect other characters while at the same time interrogating others, Chaney's character of Burke employs a series of assistants to either dress up as vampires or at certain times dress up as his version of the vampire to parade around and pretend that they are the man in the beaver hat. Those particular shots, though, the vampire was always, photographed from behind rather than the front.The very famous scene, which was the scene that got first got me interested in London After Midnight, in which the maidm played by Polly Moran is in the chair shrieking at Chaney's winged self, hovering over her. It was unfortunate to me to realize that that was actually a flashback scene told from the maid's perspective.And by the end of the film, the maid is revealed to be an informant of Burke, a secret detective also. So, it's really a strong suspension of disbelief has to be employed because the whole scene of Chaney chasing the maid through the house and appearing under the door, that was clearly just the MGMs marketing at work just to show Chaney off in a bizarre makeup with a fantastic costume.Whereas he is predominantly the detective and the scenes where he's not needed to hypnotize a character in the full vampire makeup, he just employs an assistant who parades around in the house as him, all the times with his back turned so that the audience can't latch on as to who the character actually is, 'cause it must have posed quite a fun confusion that how can Chaney be a detective in this room where the maid has just ran from the Vampire, which is also Chaney?John: Yeah, and it doesn't help that the plot is fairly convoluted anyway, and then you add that layer. So, do you think we'll ever see a copy of it? Do you think it's in a basement somewhere?Daniel: I've always personally believed that the film does exist. Not personally out of just an unfounded fanboy wish, but just based on the evidence and examples of other films that have been found throughout time. Metropolis being probably the most prominent case. But, at one point there was nothing on London After Midnight and now there is just short of 20 frames for the film. So, if that can exist currently now in the year 2023, what makes us think that more footage can't be found by, say, 2030? I think with fans, there's such a high expectation that if it's not found in their own lifetime or in their own convenience space of time, it must not exist. There's still a lot of silent lost treasures that just have not been found at all that do exist though. So, with London After Midnight, from a purely realistic standpoint, I've always theorized myself that the film probably does exist in an archive somewhere, but it would probably be a very abridged, foreign condensed version, as opposed to a pristine 35-millimeter print that someone had ripped to safety stock because they knew in the future the film would become the most coveted of all lost films. So, I do believe it does exist. The whole theory of it existing in a private collection and someone's waiting to claim the newfound copyright on it, I think after December of last year, I think it's finally put that theory to rest. I don't think a collector consciously knows they have a copy of it. So, I think it's lost until found personally, but probably within an archive.Jim: Lost until found. That's a great title for a book. I like that a lot. What do you think of the remake, Mark of the Vampire and in your opinion, what does it tell us about, London After Midnight?Daniel: Well, Mark of the Vampire came about again, part of the Sound Revolution. It was one of those because it was Chaney and Todd Browning's most successful film for the studio. And Browning was currently, being held on a tight leash by MGM because of his shocking disaster film Freaks, I suppose they were a little bit nervous about giving him the reign to do what he wanted again. So, looking through their backlog of smash silent hits, London After Midnight seemed the most logical choice to remake, just simply because it was their most, successful collaboration. Had it have been The Unholy Three, I'm sure? Oh no, we already had The Unholy Three, but had it have been another Browning Chaney collaboration, it might have been The Unknown, otherwise. So, I suppose that's why London After Midnight was selected and eventually turned into Mark of the Vampire. The story does not stray too much from London After Midnight, although they seem to complicate it a little bit more by taking the Burke vampire character and turning it this time into three characters played by three different actors, all of which happened to be in cahoots with one another in trying to solve an old murder mystery.It's very atmospherical. You can definitely tell it's got Todd Browning signature on it. It's more pondering with this one why they just did not opt to make a legit, supernatural film, rather than go in the pseudo vampire arena that they pursued in 1927. Where audiences had by now become accustomed to the supernatural with Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, which no longer relied on a detective trying to find out a certain mystery and has to disguise themselves as a monster.The monster was actually now a real thing in the movies. So I think if Bela Lugosi had been given the chance to have played a real Count Mora as a real vampire, I think it would've been slightly better received as opposed to a dated approach that was clearly now not the fashionable thing to do.I suppose again, because Browning was treading a very thin line with MGM, I suppose he couldn't really stray too far from the original source material. But I find it a very atmospherical film, although I think the story works better as a silent film than it does as a sound film, because there's a lot of silent scenes in that film, away from owls, hooting and armadillos scurrying about and winds. But I do think, based on things like The Cat and The Canary from 1927 and The Last Warning, I just think that detective sleuth with horror overtones serves better to the silent world than it does the sound world away from the legit, supernatural.John: So, if Chaney hadn't died, do you think he would have played Dracula? Do you think he would've been in Freaks? Would Freaks have been more normalized because it had a big name in it like that?Daniel: It would've been interesting if Chaney had played in Freaks. I think because Todd Browning used the kinds of individuals that he used for Freaks, maybe Chaney would've, for a change, had been the most outta place.John: Mm-hmm.Daniel: I do think he might have played Dracula. I think Universal would've had a hell of a time trying to get him over because he had just signed a new contract with MGM, whereas Todd Browning had transferred over to Universal by 1930 and really wanted to make Dracula for many years and probably discussed it with Chaney as far back as 1920.But certainly MGM would not have permitted Chaney to have gone over to Universal, even for a temporary period, without probably demanding a large piece of the action, in a financial sense, because Universal had acquired the rights to Dracula at this point. And, based on the stage play that had, come out on Broadway, it was probably assured that it was going to be a giant moneymaker, based on the success of the Dracula play.But because of Cheney's, status as a, I suppose retrospectively now, as a horror actor, he was probably the first person to be considered for that role by Carl Laemmle, senior and Junior for that matter. And Chaney gone by 1930, it did pose a puzzle as to who could take over these kinds of roles.Chaney was probably the only one to really successfully do it and make the monster an actual box office ingredient more than any other actor at that time, as he did with. Phantom, Blind Bargain and London After Midnight. So, I think to have pursued Chaney for a legit, supernatural film would've had enormous possibilities for Browning and Chaney himself.You can kind of see a trend, a trilogy forming, with Browning, from London After Midnight, in which he incorporates things he used in Dracula in London After Midnight. So, he kind of had this imagery quite early on. So, to go from – despite it's not in that order -- but to have London After Midnight, Mark of the Vampire, and he also did Dracula, he clearly was obsessed with the story. And I think Chaney was probably the, best actor for someone like Browning who complimented his way of thinking and approach to things like silence. As opposed to needing dialogue all the time, loud commotions. So, I think they dovetailed each other quite well, and that's why their ten year director actor relationship was as groundbreaking as it was.Jim: If the film does surface, if we find the film, what do you think people, how are they gonna react to the movie when they see it? What do you think? What's gonna be the reaction if it does surface?Daniel: Well, the lure of London After Midnight, the power in the film is its lost status rather than its widespread availability. I think it could never live up to the expectation that we've built up in our heads over the past 40 to 60 years. It was truly people, fans like Forrest J Ackerman that introduced and reignited the interest in Chaney's career by the late fifties and 1960s. That's when London After Midnight started to make the rounds in rumor, the rumors of a potential print existing, despite the film had not long been destroyed at that point. So, it was always a big mystery. There were always people who wanted to see the film, but with no access to home video, or et cetera, the only way you could probably see the film would've been at the studio who held everything. And, by the time the TV was coming out, a lot of silent films didn't make it to TV. So again, it has just germinated in people's heads probably in a better form than what they actually remembered. But, the true reality of London After Midnight is one more closer to the ground than it is in it's people are probably expecting to see something very supernatural on par with Dracula, whereas it's more so a Sherlock Holmes story with mild horrorish overtones to it that you can kind of see better examples of later on in Dracula in 1930 and in Mark of the Vampire.It's a film purely, I think for Lon Chaney fans. For myself, having read everything I can on the film, everything I've seen on the film, I personally love silent, detective stories, all with a touch of horror. So, I personally would know what I am going in to see. I'm not going in to see Chaney battling a Van Helsing like figure and turn to dust at the very end or turning to a bat. I'm going to see a detective melodrama that happens to have what looks like a vampire. So, it certainly couldn't live up to the expectations in people's minds and it's probably the only film to have had the greatest cheapest, marketing in history, I would think. It's one of those films, if it was discovered, you really would not have to do much marketing to promote it.It's one of those that in every fanzine, magazine, documentary referenced in pop. It has really marketed itself into becoming what I always call the mascot of the genre. There are other more important lost films that have been lost to us. The main one again, which has been found in its more complete form, was Metropolis, which is a better movie.But unlike Metropolis, London After Midnight has a lot more famous ingredients to it. It has a very famous director. It has a very famous actor whose process was legendary even during then. And it's actually the only film in which he actually has his make-up case make a cameo appearance by the very end. And it goes on the thing that everyone in every culture loves, which is the vampirism, the dark tales and folklore. So, when you say it, it just gets your imagination going. Whereas I think if you are watching it, it's probably you'll be looking over the projector to see if something even better is going to happen.The film had its mixed reactions when it originally came out. People liked it because it gave them that cheap thrill of being a very atmospherical, haunted house with the creepy figures of Chaney walking across those dusty hallways. But then the more important story is a murder mystery.It's not Dracula, but it has its own things going for it. I always kind of harken it back to the search for the Lochness Monster or Bigfoot. It has more power in your mind than it does in an aquarium or in a zoo. Hearing someone say that they think they saw something moving around in Lochness, but there's no photographic evidence, you just have the oral story, that is much more tangible in a way than actually seeing it in an aquarium where you can take it for granted. And it's the same with London After Midnight, and I think that's why a lot of hoaxster and pranksters tend to say that they have seen London After Midnight more than any other lost film.Jim: For a film that I would say the majority of the world does not have any frame of reference, and I'm using myself as the sort of blueprint for that, no frame of reference for this film. That image is iconic in a way that has been, I mean, it at first glance could be Jack the Ripper. I was talking to John before we started the podcast, once I locked in on that image, then I started to think, oh, the ghosts in Disney's Haunted Mansion, there's a couple of ghosts that have elements of that. I mean, it was so perfectly done, even though we don't, I bet you nine out ten people don't know the title London After Midnight, but I bet you seven outta ten people know this image.Daniel: Definitely, it has certainly made its mark on pop culture, again, I think because I think it's such a beautiful, simplistic design. Everything from the simplistically [garbled] to the bulging eyes and the very nice top hat as well, which is in itself today considered a very odd accessory for a grotesque, vampire character.But it's one of those things that has really carried over. It's influenced what the movies and artists. It was one of the influences for the Babadook creation for that particular monster. It was an influence on the Black Phone. It's just a perfect frame of reference for movie makers and sculptors and artists to keep taking from.John: Yep. It's, it'll live long beyond us. Daniel, one last question. I read somewhere or heard somewhere. You're next gonna tackle James Whale, is that correct? Daniel: James Whale is a subject, again, coming from, I happen to come from the exact same town that he was born and raised in, in Dudley, England. So, it's always been a subject close to home for me, which is quite convenient because I love his movies. So, I'm hoping to eventually, hopefully plan a documentary feature on him, based on a lot of family material in the surrounding areas that I was able to hunt down, and forgotten histories about him and just put it together in some form, hopefully in the future.John: That would be fantastic, and we'll have you back at that point.Jim: So, let's pretend for a minute that the audience is me, and they'd have absolutely no idea who James Whale is or what he's done. Just for a minute, let's pretend.John: Pretend that you don't know that?Jim: Yeah.Daniel: James Whale is the most known for his work for directing Frankenstein with Boris Karloff in 1931. But he also directed probably some of the most important horror films that have ever existed in the history of motion pictures. The Old Dark House, which can be cited with its very atmospherical, and black comedy tones, The Invisible Man with Claude Rains and Gloria Stewart in 1933. And, the most important one, which is probably the grand jewel in the whole of the Universal Monsters Empire, which is Bride of Frankenstein in 1935, which is the ultimate, example of everything that he had studied, everything that he'd learned with regards to cinema and comedy, life and death, and just making a very delicious cocktail of a movie in all of its black comedy, horrific, forms that we're still asking questions about today. One of his first films that he did was for Howard Hughes Hell's Angels, in which -- because he'd coming over from theater -- when again, films in America were taken off with the sound revolution. They all of a sudden needed British directors to translate English dialogue better than the actors could convey.So, James Whale was one of many to be taken over to America when he had a hit play called Journeys End, which became the most successful war play at that point. And he did his own film adaptation of Journeys End. He also did a really remarkable film called Showboat, which is another very iconic film.And again, someone with James Whale's horror credentials, you just think, how could someone who directed Frankenstein directed Showboat? But, clearly a very, very talented director who clearly could not be pigeonholed at the time as a strictly horror director, despite it is the horror films in which he is remembered for, understandably so, just because they contain his very individualistic wit and humor and his outlooks on life and politics. And being an openly gay director at the time, he really was a force unto himself. He was a very modern man even then.

Jesus Ministries, Joan Boney  ...    Revelation 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto HIS servants things which must shortly come to pass; and HE sent and signified it by HIS angel unto HIS servant John:   It is important to understand God's view of time.   2 Peter 3  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.   So in the sight of God it has been 2 days since the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus into heaven.  But man views it as 2024 years!   Therefore when we hear that Jesus will come quickly, it is quickly in the sight of God.  

Are you planning for your retirement with the confidence that you're making all the right moves? In today's episode, we'll unveil the crucial income planning mistakes that could jeopardize your retirement and show you how to craft a financial plan that's built to last decades, not just years. Tune in to ensure your retirement strategy is foolproof against common pitfalls and ready to secure your financial future.   Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Marc: Are you planning for your retirement with the confidence that you're making all the right moves? Well, on today's episode, we'll unveil the crucial income planning mistakes that could jeopardize your retirement and show how to craft the financial plan that's built to last decades, not just years. Tune in to Retirement Planning Redefined. All that, coming up next.   Hey everybody, welcome into the podcast, John and Nick joining me once again to talk investing, finance, and retirement here on Retirement Planning Redefined with the guys from PFG Private Wealth. John and Nick are financial advisors helping folks get to and through retirement. You can find them online, if you've got some questions, need some help, at pfgprivatewealth.com, pfgprivatewealth.com. And we're going to talk about some income planning mistakes this week here on the podcast.   What's going on, gents? How you doing, Nick? What's going on, buddy?   Nick: Good, good. Just staying busy. Just crazy that we're almost April. I guess we're approaching April at this point. Just had some friends in town, so that's always a little bit chaotic. But no, everything's good. No complaints.   Marc: John, how's it going in the crazy household that is yours my friend? You doing all right?   John: It is crazy. I don't want to get into it. But yes, it is a madhouse. I'll leave it at that. But, yes.   Marc: But having little ones always is, but that's good.   John: Yeah, you know well.   Marc: Well, and it's April, right? It's a busy time of year, too, a lot of things happening with taxes and financial strategies and everything. Anyway, it's spring, all that good stuff.   So, let's talk about some income planning mistakes. Let's kick it off with something simple. I teed it up a little bit in the intro there about being retired for decades, not just years. I know that we all fundamentally think that, John. We're like, "Yeah, of course, we're going to be retired for decades." But somehow or another it disassociates, I think, as we're getting thirties, forties, maybe even in our early fifties. We don't really put as much thought to it, I guess, as we should.   For me, for example, all the men in my family die young. I've already had heart surgery at a young age, so I could easily jump onto that path of, well, I'm not going to live that long, so whatever. I am not going to really worry about planning for decades. But that's just a bad move, especially if you've got people that you love, loved ones that you may want to make sure they're taken care of too. So, ways to think about it, right?   John: Yeah, the worst thing you could do is plan to retire for a few years, and next thing you know, run out of money, you don't know what's happening anymore. But no, we get this quite a bit where I can remember clearly Nick and I were doing a plan and the money around the eighties, it was looking a little tight. The person was pretty excited. We were like, "We need to make some adjustments to make sure it lasts age 100." He is like, "No, I'm good." He's like, "I'm not lasting until 80 or 83." And we were like, "Okay, well, we'll still do our due diligence to make sure your money lasts for a while," but [inaudible 00:02:55]   Marc: What if you're wrong? That's the thing. And did this person have a spouse? Were they married?   John: He had a spouse there. He was semi-serious, but we ended up making some adjustments to it. But that is something we had quite a bit. When we do our planning, we make sure it goes to age 100, because you can't predict the future. And with technology and everything that's going on now, people are living longer.   Marc: For sure.   John: It's just the healthcare industry, there's just always new innovative things happening. But it's a mindset that I will say people need to understand.   And that goes with building a portfolio. Just had a conversation with a client this week, and we're doing some things, and they're just looking at everything short-term. I had to remind them and say, "Hey, you're looking at a 20, 30 year period where there's some long-term money here. Not everything is the next five years." And just talking to her made her realize that of just saying, "Hey, I'm still invested for the long term. I can't make adjustments just based on expecting the next four or five years." So, that is a mindset people really don't understand with the investment portfolio. You still have some long-term money, because your retirement is going to be 20, 30 years, not just four or five.   Marc: No, a great point. Glad you were able to have that conversation with her and get her eyes moving. I think that's a real value add right there that people don't often take into account when working with a financial professional. We tend to think, "Well, it's the X's and the O's. They're going to help me figure out the dollars and the cents." But there's also really thinking through and behavioral analysis a little bit, behavioral changes that we have to walk through, because you guys see this day in and day out.   And Nick, I'll throw number two over to you. Part of that, as John was just saying, "Hey, you've got to set things up for short-term and long-term," social security is going to play a big factor in that. So, starting it too early could really change your long-term numbers.   Nick: Yeah, there's an extra emotional attachment to social security, which we very much understand.   Marc: Whether you're mad at it or not, whether it takes off or not.   Nick: Yeah, and we totally understand that. For us, we always try to integrate the social security decision with the overall investments and the overall plan. Just like with anything, we always approach it from the perspective of, hey, our job is to tell you the impact of the decisions you may make, and then ultimately it's your money.   But, for sure, one of the biggest negatives, especially if they're financial situation is pretty solid otherwise, starting social security too early these days makes a difference. Really the last few years have really played that out. Anybody that started social security before COVID and maybe didn't necessarily need to, between the inflationary adjustments that have happened, which they still would've received, that inflationary adjustment compounds with the delay. And so, the jumps in benefits for anybody that's waited those few extra years have been substantial, and people that are starting it now are pretty happy that they waited, and it's made a difference for them.   Marc: Well, if you don't have a strategy, you could be costing yourself tens of thousands. This could be big dollars over the course of your lifetime. I get it. We're all terrified about what's going on in the world, because every five seconds it seems like there's some new, crazy, weird, wonky thing happening in the world that is 2024. But you've still got to make sure that you're making the right decision so that these planning mistakes don't come back to bite you 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the line. So, good points, for sure.   Hey, John, what about bonds? For years, you'd go 60/40. You'd go standard portfolio. You'd go to bonds as we age for safety. Last couple of years though, they ain't been all that great. So, is it still one of those things where assuming it's a safe source is a good move, or not?   John: Yeah, I would say it's not to assume that that's going to be 100% your source of income. We're going to-   Marc: From a safe side, right?   John: Yeah, yeah. We're going to touch on inflation and things like that. We've talked about being retired for decades, so you want to make sure that you have some equities in the portfolio so you are keeping up with costs of living going up. If you're just in bonds and fixed income, you're going to lose out on a lot of upside. And then, if you look at the past years, although interest rates have gone up obviously the last couple of years, there was about a 15, 20-year period where you get a bond and it's giving you two or 3%. That's nearly not enough to supplement most people's income.   Marc: Oh, for sure.   John: So, you definitely want to diversify, make sure you're planning for the long term for some growth, and also you want to adjust to an environment where interest rates are very low and the bond yields just aren't enough to sustain what you're trying to do.   Marc: And at the time we're taping this here, it's just at the very end of March, it'll probably be out sometime here in April of '24, Powell still saying that even though the numbers came back in, inflation was a tad higher, I think, just last month then what they anticipated core inflation. He's still saying that nothing's changed for him, and that they may be looking at cutting rates throughout 2024. So, who knows?   But Nick, that does play into inflation as John just teed it up. Our fourth point here is it's going to play into it no matter what's going on with the dynamic that we have right now. But even just basic inflation, even if you just go sticking with the normal 3% we've seen for years and years and years, if you don't take this into account, and again, our topic being income planning mistakes, you are seriously messing yourself up, because five grand right now, if that's your expenses, is not going to be five grand in 10 years. It just isn't.   Nick: Yeah. I would say too, especially in this area, I think there's been some studies at the inflation rate in the Tampa Bay area has been higher than other places.   Marc: Okay.   Nick: I've had multiple conversations with clients where there's been this... I think because there was such a period of scarcity in getting decent fixed rates, whatever it was, eight to 10 years, it's like people are just taking a deep breath and just saying, "Oh, finally I can get four and a half or 5% on my money again," which is great, but the issue is that some are assuming that it's going to last for a long period of time. Last year is a really good example from the perspective of that five-ish percent, whether it's a CD or money market or whatever, solidified last year. We had some clients that shifted more over, and we had many conversations about it. But again, it's like the S&P then did, what, around 20% or something like that?   So, there was an opportunity cost there. When the market's up like that, you really don't want to lose out on those years. And so, the inflation is compounded. For example, even just people that are in Florida and live in a condo, maybe they've lived in a condo for a while, all the condo rules and association rules have changed. They're like, "I've seen association fees double in the last two or three years," and it's really putting a lot of pressure on people. Even if their mortgage is paid off, but they've been on somewhat of a fixed income, there's a lot of pressure happening there.   And so, yeah, we try to just keep emphasizing even if it's a small portion of the money, even if it's only 20 to 40% of the overall portfolio where we have something related to growth, more marketed towards that, getting them to understand that, hey, this is for money down the road. No matter where the rates are right now, the one thing I can promise you is they're going to change. And so, that's been a little bit of a different conversation than we've had to have probably, I'd say, the 10 years previous to that. So, it's going to be interesting to see how people start to react when the cuts do happen.   Marc: Yeah, because you're talking about having to keep up with inflation, you need to have some stuff at growth. You've got to have some stuff at risk, basically, so that you can pick up gains in the market, things of that nature, wherever it's coming from. But you've got to have some money out there taking a few chances, because you do have to keep up with or outpace inflation.   I guess that really just brings me to my last point here, John, and you guys can both jump in if you'd like to on this, but you've got to have other income streams besides just social security, plain and simple. That's all fine and good, but you've got to have some other income streams and some of that needs to be safe, and some of that needs to help you with the future money, which is growth.   John: Yeah, 100%, Mark. Social security might cover thirty to forty-percent of someone's expenses, and covers a portion of what they need for income there, but really important to have some other income stream, whether that be real estate, whether it's your investments.   Right now, we're talking about rates, rates are really strong. We have a lot of clients looking into these income annuities, because they look really appealing right now. Because as interest rates go up, those annuity products typically tend to look a little bit better. So, just having that guaranteed income or just reliable income source to put on top of social security really gives a nice buffer.   I don't want to speak for Nick, but I have found when you have your floor of guaranteed income, it helps you make better decisions even with your other money, where if the market's volatile, but you say, "Hey, I have X amount of dollars guaranteed income coming in in this pool of money here that's set aside for growth," even when it's a little volatile, it's just giving you a little more peace of mind to saying, "Hey, I know my baseline expenses are covered, so I'm going to be okay." We find that that does help people make better decisions when they have multiple income streams.   Marc: Yeah, you got to do it, right, Nick? It's just the point of the fact that you want to have that diversification not only in income but also with tax buckets. You just want to have some general good broad diversification in your entire portfolio.   Nick: Yeah, absolutely. The diversification, and I alluded to it earlier, it's just as important as ever. Having the higher floor on fixed rates has been helpful the last couple years, but the phrase that I've used quite a bit lately is zoom out. We need to zoom out and continue to zoom out, because that's really important, for sure.   Marc: That higher view of things versus trying to narrow in?   Nick: Yeah.   Marc: Yeah, I got you. Well, so there's some income planning mistakes that we can certainly make, so make sure that you're avoiding these. And of course, if you think, "Well, I don't do this every day," or, "This is something that I just can't wrap my brain around all the time because I'm just too busy living my life and working my own job," or whatever the case might be, that's why you have a financial team to help you out.   So, if you need some help, and of course you've got questions, always reach out to a qualified professional like John and Nick before you take any action to see how something's going to fit into your unique situation. They're financial advisors to PFG Private Wealth. You can find them online at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com.   And don't forget to subscribe to the podcast Retirement Planning Redefined on Apple or Spotify or YouTube platforms. That's going to do it this week for us. We'll be back with more on future episodes. So again, hit that subscribe button and we'll catch you next time on Retirement Planning Redefined with John and Nick.

In this episode of the Propcast, Louisa is joined by John Rogers, Chief Innovation Officer for CoreLogic and Kirby Brendsel, Flagstar Bank's VP, Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) and Sustainability Director, where they discuss all things climate and housing affordability, and the solutions that are out there to help solve the issues!  John and Kirby explained the importance of providing data and analytics around climate risk to allow companies to measure the financial impact of climate change up to the year 2050, thus helping companies, cities, and governments to put in place mitigation plans.    Tune into this episode to hear more about how climate solutions can help with mitigation, housing affordability and insurance, and how our guest's collaboration create a rising tide that lifts all ships.    Companies mentioned  New York Communities Corp Inc  IBM  Deloitte   LMRE'S 2023 Salary Report  IPCC    Episode Highlights  My big advice for anyone would be that if you're passionate; follow your passion, go for the things that you want to do, or things that you can make a difference on, even on a small scale related to sustainability. – Kirby  We provided something called ‘climate risk analytics' which is an insight that allows companies to measure model and mitigate the financial impact of climate change – John   It's all about using data, improving your data, and capturing your data to make sound strategic decisions that helps you drive things forward – Kirby   The chef scientist of NASA said to us that he'd never expected to get to this level of granularity in his lifetime – John     Key Takeaways   How Flagstar and CoreLogic are working together to help address the issue of climate change and housing affordability  John explains the ‘average annual loss' which CoreLogic provides that is a ratio of a building's risk in terms of reconstruction costs, allowing companies to understand their financial risk  Kirby explains how important the use of data is in making strategic decisions around climate and sustainability  The opportunity in cities that have a high climate risk to use CoreLogic's analytics platform  The guests discuss the importance of educating people on the long term impact of climate change  John discusses how the needs of CoreLogic's customers change and how they accommodate for this    About our guests  John Rogers   John Rogers holds the role of Chief Innovation Officer for CoreLogic and is responsible for the R&D. From driving new solutions that understand the impacts to the real estate economy due to climate change, to ground-breaking models that identify suitable land for affordable housing development, the R&D group tackles major housing issues and works with many clients across the housing industry to drive growth and mitigate risk on their book of business.     Prior to joining CoreLogic, John was a Partner with IBM Global Business Services where he focused on the delivery of large multi-million transformational programs for the financial sector both in the United Kingdom and Australia. Prior to this, John worked as a consultant for Itim Consulting, a boutique management firm based in London. John's primary role was as a program manager on a number of assignments delivering global solutions within retail, pharmaceuticals, logistics and information services industries.   John earned a bachelor's degree from University of Glasgow, United Kingdom in Aerospace Engineering.      Company Summary: CoreLogic   CoreLogic is a leading provider of property insights and innovative solutions, working to transform the property industry by putting people first. Using its network, scale, connectivity and technology, CoreLogic delivers faster, smarter, more human-centered experiences, that build better relationships, strengthen businesses, and create a more resilient societ y. For more information, please visit www.corelogic.com.      Kirby Brendsel   Kirby Brendsel is Flagstar Bank's VP, Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) and Sustainability Director, where he leads Flagstar's strategic sustainability and initiatives and the company's goal to be a recognized global sustainability leader.  He is coming from Welltower Inc.'s (a real estate investment trust) where he headed their award-winning strategic sustainability and ESG initiatives.  Prior to joining Welltower in 2019, Mr. Brendsel worked at Nuveen as a Director of Responsible Investing.  Before Nuveen, he served as Associate Director of Sustainability for Starwood Hotel & Resorts Worldwide, where he supported the strategy, integration and management of Starwood's sustainability program and worked collaboratively with the community programs/Starwood Foundation team on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) strategy and reporting.  Previously, Mr. Brendsel consulted for Deloitte where he assisted in the creation of Deloitte's Federal Sustainability practice and Diversity & Inclusion program.  Mr. Brendsel's other past roles include active-duty service as a Military Intelligence Corps Major in the U.S. Army.    Mr. Brendsel graduated with distinction and honors from the College of William and Mary with a B.A. in Business and the Jones Graduate School of Management at Rice University with an M.B.A. He is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) from the Project Management Institute (PMI), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Green Associate (GA), and Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt.  Mr. Brendsel was recently recognized as an Honoree for 2020 by Environment + Energy Leader's annual "best of" list of environment and energy professionals - the E+E 100.      Mr. Brendsel is active in his local community, where he has served on the Board of Directors of the Aspetuck Land Trust and Lachat Town Farm Commission as well as on the Town of Weston's Sustainability Committee, Historical Society, and Conservation and Parks & Recreation Commissions.         Company Summary: Flagstar   New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is the parent company of Flagstar Bank, N.A., one of the largest regional banks in the country. The Company is headquartered in Hicksville, New York with regional headquarters in Troy, Michigan. At June 30, 2023, the Company had $118.8 billion of assets, $84.9 billion of loans, deposits of $88.5 billion, and total stockholders' equity of $11.1 billion.    Flagstar Bank, N.A. operates 436 branches, including strong footholds in the Northeast and Midwest and exposure to high growth markets in the Southeast and West Coast. Flagstar Mortgage operates nationally through a wholesale network of approximately 3,000 third-party mortgage originators. In addition, the Bank has 132 private banking teams located in over 10 cities in the metropolitan New York City region and on the West Coast, which serve the needs of high-net worth individuals and their businesses.   New York Community Bancorp, Inc. has market-leading positions in several national businesses, including multi-family lending, mortgage origination and servicing, and warehouse lending. The Company is the 2nd largest multi-family portfolio lender in the country and the leading multi-family portfolio lender in the New York City market area, where it specializes in rent-regulated, non-luxury apartment buildings. Flagstar Mortgage is the 8th largest bank originator of residential mortgages for the 12-months ending June 30, 2023, while we are the industry's 5th largest sub-servicer of mortgage loans nationwide, servicing 1.6 million accounts with $426 billion in unpaid principal balances. Additionally, the Company is the 2nd largest mortgage warehouse lender nationally based on total commitments.     About Our Host    Louisa Dickins    Louisa is the Co-Founder of LMRE, which has rapidly become the market-leading global built environment recruitment platform and search consultancy, specializing in finding the best strategic talent for the most innovative organisations in PropTech, ConTech, Smart Buildings, ESG, Sustainability and Strategic Consulting with operations across North America, United Kingdom, Europe, Asia-Pacific and MENA.      To promote the industry she is so passionate about, Louisa set up the Global podcast ‘The Propcast' where she hosts and invites guests from the built environment space to join her in conversation about innovation.   

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with magician Lance Burton about how he wrote (and directed and starred in) the delightfully comic “Billy Topit: Master Magician.”LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Lance Burton Website: https://www.lanceburton.com/Billy Topit Website: http://www.billytopit.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastLance Burton TranscriptJohn: I loved Billy Topit, both Jim and I did. I've made a number of low budget movies in my life, about a half dozen of them and the driving force behind them has almost always been, let's get together with some friends and make a movie. I got the sense that that was kind of part of the DNA of Billy Topit. Is that right?Lance: Well, yes, I just have to correct you on one thing: Billy Topit was not a low budget movie. It was a nobudget movie. We literally just decided, you know what, I'm not going to spend any money. Everyone volunteered. So, if it ever makes any money, I'll go back and pay the actors.John: Well, okay. But as someone who has done the same thing, I've done that a half dozen times with the no money. The results you got, given the no money status, were great. Your sound is exceptional. One of the things that's normally a big sign that it's a low budget movie is the sound is not good. It's a hard thing to get right and when you do get it right, it makes it sound like a big budget movie. The cinematography is terrific, the editing is fantastic. I don't know if you bought the music, or if someone did the music, but whatever it was it fit perfectly, and it just sailed along. So, for a movie that had no budget, you did an exceptional job of making a real movie.Lance: Oh, thank you. You're right, the sound is the one thing you really don't want to skimp on, because that's something you really can't fix in post a lot of the times. So, we did try to pay attention to the sound recording. As far as the music goes, some of the music was from my show that I already own. Some of the performance pieces, some of the music we use just for the movie, was rights free music that that I got from a company called Digital juice. They have all different sorts of music and it's searchable. So, you can find you know, rock and roll hard driving music, you can find, you know, instrumentals, you really have everything.Then there was a couple of pieces that a friend of mine, who's a musician wrote and recorded for me. And one of the pieces in the film, my lead actress, Joelle Rigetti, she had actually recorded an album a couple of years ago and she gave me the album during the production. She said, “Hey, anything on here you want you're welcome to use.” And I listened to it and there was one track, I went, this is perfect for this one scene I have. It's that it's the scene where the whole cast is waking up on the second day, brushing their teeth and getting ready to go out. That's actually the lead actress singing.John: The stuff you picked all really meshed well together.Lance: Oh, thank you. It was during the post-production process when it really struck me—as we were editing and doing that—how much the music adds to a production, not just a live show. I already knew that for a live show. But as I was making the film, it really just struck me again, you know, wow, music really does add a whole new dimension to the movie or live show.John: Yeah. So, where did the idea for the movie come from?Lance: Well, I'll tell you exactly where it came from. When I was a kid, there was a television series on TV called The Magician starring Bill Bixby. It only lasted one season, because the network got a new president that came in and he just, you know, cancelled all his predecessors' shows. But it actually did good in the ratings. But it only lasted 22 episodes.The magic consultant on The Magician was Mark Wilson and so when I moved out west, I met Mark Wilson, and became friends with him. Then when I was shooting Knightrider, guess who they hired to provide all of the large illusions and props for the episode? Mark Wilson. He was sort of the magic advisor on that television show. So, Mark, and I got to hang out for seven days on the set as we were shooting. He's actually in the episode. You can see shots of him. He's sitting in the audience during one of the opening performances. In fact, I get him up on stage at one point as a volunteer. So, anyway, one day after filming, Mark and I are going out to dinner and we're in his car and we're driving along. And he says to me, “Lance, how do you like doing this work?” And I said, “What do you mean, Mark? You mean like this episode?” He says, “Yeah, how do you like, you know, acting on this, this TV show?” And I said, “I'm having the time of my life. I get to do magic. I get to act. I get to work with a stuntman, and this is great.” And he says, “Well, you're doing a good job and you ought to think about doing more of this.” And I said, “More of this, so what do you mean?” He says, “You ought to start a notebook, start keeping some ideas of how you could incorporate your magic into a TV series or movie, you know, like with the Bill Bixby series.” And I thought, Oh, that's a good idea. So, I did, I started writing, every time I had an idea about how to use magic within the context of the drama series, or, you know, a story, I would write it down. So, after a few years, I had all these sort of clever things that I came up with, to use magic and propelling the story forward, or to get out of this sticky situation or whatever. And every few years, I've pulled that out, and I'd go, “You know, I'm going to try and go pitch this,” and I would go to Los Angeles and set up some meetings. And I was trying to pitch to do a series every few years and we got close a couple of times, but we never were able to sell it. But the area I was working in was so similar to things that would pop up on my TV screen later. I kept thinking, “Man, I've got something here, I just need to, like any kind of magic trick, you know, I get it in my head and it's frustrating, I just I gotta get it out, I got to put it on the stage because it's like in my brain is like scratching the inside of my skull and it's really annoying.” By that time, the technology had progressed to the point where we had these high-definition cameras that weren't, you know, astronomically expensive. And we had editing software so that somebody on their laptop could put out a professional looking product. So, I finally just said, hey, you know what, I'm gonna do this. And I called my buddy, Michael Goudeau and he came over and we fleshed out the story. And then we wrote the screenplay within, like two or three months. And then we eventually just started casting it and shot it. So, it all goes back to Bill Bixby and The Magician from 1973. John: Well, most things do. Most things do go back that. Were you always planning on directing?Lance: You know, directing and acting at the same time is really difficult. But I had been doing it all my life, you know, with my live show. And we started in on this thing and then at some point, I heard an interview with Barbra Streisand, and someone asked her that question, and they said, “Is it difficult to act and direct in the same production?” And she had a great response. She said, “No, it's easier that way. That's one less person I have to argue with.”Jim: She's right. Absolutely right. So, talk a little bit about how the movie changed, you know, from your initial script and then through shooting and editing. Were there a lot of kind of, oh, let's do this. Oh, that didn't work. Lance: I'll tell you what: when I first had the idea, I didn't have a real clear idea of the tone I wanted to take, you know? As far as it could have been a drama, it could have been a comedy or whatever. But I started chatting with my buddy, Michael Goudeau. Now, Michael worked in my show, as my special guest star. We've been friends for, you know, since the mid-80s and Michael said, this was his idea. So, I gave him credit. He said, we should write this is a family film and I said, why is that? He says, because I have two small children and about two or three times a year, I have to take them to the movies and we have to pick a family film, and they're always horrible. That's why I'd like to see a good family film. Something good, we can take the kids to see. And I said okay, that's fine. You know, that fits. Magic's always been considered a good family entertainment. So, we chose to write it as a family friendly movie, and as a comedy, but I give credit to Michael for that, and it didn't alter that much. Once we had the script completed, the idea was, you know, to keep to the script as close as we can within reason. Now, there were some scenes that were improvised and there were some things that I added during the course of the movie. I'll tell you one thing that we added: the film starts with a dream sequence, with Billy floating a lady in the air. And then he wakes up in bed and you realize, oh, that was just a dream. He doesn't really have a big Las Vegas show. He's a birthday party magician and that was the first thing we shot. So, as we were shooting, I read a book by Robert Rodriguez about his experience shooting El Mariachi. That was recommended to me by Rory Johnston, who played the bad guy in my movie. When I explained to Rory what we were going to do, he said, oh, you're doing like a no budget movie, like Robert Rodriguez. And I said, Who's Robert Rodriguez? He said, he is just a director, he started out by making this movie called El Mariachi. He had $7,000. That was it and he made a whole film. And so, I bought the DVD to watch. I wanted to see what a $7,000 movie look like. And then I read his book and he had some really interesting advice and thoughts. He was talking about the power of three—which magicians will do also—where you have a callback, or something keeps popping back up, and it happens three times. In El Mariachi, there's like this sort of dream sequence. But it happens three times. And I started thinking, he's got a really good point there. So, I started thinking, where else could I insert, I need two more dream sequences? And I've got to find a place to insert them. So, we wrote two more dream sequences and found the right place to put them. And we shot that, but that kind of happened once we started once we started shooting.Jim: You know, John, as he's mentioned, has shot some low budget movies here and there, populated largely by friends of John. And I get the sense that, in watching your movie, that these people are all your buddies, that they're all your pals, these are all your friends. Lance: Oh, yeah, they're all my friends. The only time there were people in their movie, really, that I didn't know, like extras in the restaurant. We would just ask people, do you have any friends that you can come over and be background actors? And a lot of them are my friends. Like the birthday party scene: those kids are all kids of friends. Like, hey, if you got kids, bring them over to my stage manager's house.John: It really looks like you guys are having fun throughout the whole movie. I don't mean to denigrate it in any way, but it's a really goofy movie. It is surprisingly silly in a really fun way.Lance: It's a silly movie and a lot of that stuff is Michael Goudeau. Everybody loves Michael and loves his comedy and kids especially love him. So, that's we wanted to go for. For instance, when we were writing the date scene, you know, that was a silly scene and they were doing the game with the milk, the little milk containers. And Michael said, listen, when I take my kids to a movie, when it gets to the romantic the date scene, they are bored. They are like, oh, they're falling asleep going, oh, when is this over? So, let's beef this up with something silly. Hey, great. That sounds great. So, again, a lot of that stuff was just the purpose of the movie was to keep everybody's interest.John: And that's probably something you've learned from being on stage forever, is feeling when the audience might be getting bored and being ahead of them. Lance: Yeah, you don't want to get to that point. You want to keep it moving. Jim: Your friend Michael is in the movie?Lance: Yes, he is in the movie. He's one of the jugglers. Jim: Okay. But the taller one or the shorter one?Lance: The shorter one. He was my co-writer on the screenplay and also co-executive producer.Jim: At the very end, in the credits, there's some very clever, funny, little teases about the possibility and it was sort of like, gosh, I hope there is a sequel. Is there talk of that--?John: And I will say, I'm going to speak from my podcast partner here. We're standing by ready to help you if you want to do.Jim: Absolutely. I'll drop everything. Lance: Billy Topit Part Two, The Empire Strikes Back. Billy Topit Part Two, the Search for Spock. I tell you, that was just me getting at the end of the editing process and doing the credits and it's just going out. This will be funny. Just me just making up silly stuff.John: And the image of you doing that of sitting on a computer and editing, do you have the filmmaking bug now or you going to it doesn't have to be a sequel, Billy Topit, but...Lance: I've enjoyed. Here's the thing that I enjoyed the most on the whole process was learning to edit. My good buddy Bob Massey was our photographer and our editor. But in the process of editing, I would go over to his house, and we would work on it and then he'd have to go do something. I was like, do we have to stop? And one day he said, you know, I can give you the software. I bought this and I can put it on two computers legally. So, if you want to, I'll show you how. I went, yeah. So, I went out, I bought this and I put this stuff on, and I started to learn how to edit. Bob was there to help me, show me. I really loved it. I really, really loved the process. And a lot of it is very similar to magic. I'll give you a good example of that: There's a scene at the end of the movie where they've opened the big show and I do the sawing a couple into eight pieces. So, we got the two, the boy and the girl and they get sawed apart and they come out of the boxes at the end. And the boys were in the girl's clothes and they chase each other offstage. And then they run past the camera and then the second shot, you see them run into view in the wings. And then they have a scene in the wings. Well, we shot the first part, with the doing the trick, and then running past the camera. We shot that at the Monte Carlo hotel in 2010. And the scene in the wings, we shot in 2013, on the other side of town at Rory Johnson's church that he went to. They allowed us to shoot there. So, the two scenes that are supposed to be at the same time were shot three years apart in different locations.As we were shooting the first one, I knew in my mind what I wanted to do: I wanted him to run past the camera, and then I would pick it up. And the rest of the cast hadn't even been cast yet by the way. I didn't even know who the other actors were going to be. But I knew there was a scene over there. So, as they run past, I'll pick it up. Whenever we get to that three years later, we shoot the thing. Now I'm editing it together. So, now I take the music from the first part of the shot, playing during the trick and the audience reaction. You get the audience applauding and cheering, and they run past the camera and we go to the second shot. But you still hear the audio, you still hear the music playing, and you hear me out on stage going thank you and the audience applauding. And so now when you put it all together, it's like it's seamless. No one knows that that scene was shot three years apart. It's like a magic trick. It's an illusion. There's a good example of how the sound helps enhance the illusion. And there are a few magic tricks that we do on stage where sound is a very big part of the illusion.John: I don't know at what point in the process you read Robert Rodriguez's book, but he based El Mariachi on what he had available. He wrote the script based on the town, the bar, the tortoise, the dog, all of that. You seem to have done a very similar thing, in that I'm guessing you already had some footage you on stage or was it a relatively easy thing to get. For an average person, that's a really hard thing to get.Lance: Exactly. And I had to shoot all that before the show closed, because we were getting ready to close the show. So, we captured all of that all the stuff that had to be shot in the theatre, we captured that. John: But for the average person writing a script, to write that in a scene, you can't shoot that. The lights alone in the ceiling are more than your budget.Lance: And I was well aware that. I had this opportunity that we'd written it into the script and it's like, okay, I gotta shoot this now, because if I wait another two months, it's all going to be gone.John: Exactly. And I felt the same with the scenes in the casino, which would be I think, normally a difficult thing to do. But you obviously had a relationship to make those happen.Lance: The casino scenes, those were all shot afterwards. That was my buddy, John Woodrum, who owned this little casino called the Klondike. We wanted it to be a locals type Casino. I talked to a few of the casinos and some of them were like, yeah, we'd let you come in here and shoot, we have a coffee shop. How many days do you need it? And I'm going to myself, I don't know how long this is going to take to shoot. I never shot a movie before. And then finally I went over to see my buddy, John and I said, John, I've got this movie I'm shooting, and some of the action takes place in the casino. And there's a coffee shop and you've got a coffee shop. What would you think about a shooting here? And he looks at me says yeah, whatever you want. Come on in. I'm like, what? Come on, anytime. That's like, Okay, I found this. I found our location. John: You are a low-budget filmmaker at heart. You got all the tricks that are necessary to be good at this and you did it on your first movie. That's exceptional.Lance: It was a fun process and it's not dissimilar to shooting a television special or a TV show, but it is a little different. There is obviously magic in it. But you know, there's also the whole second element of the story and doing the scene and the acting and getting all the actors on the same page.John: And speaking of the actors, I was thrilled to see our friend Louie Anderson in there. He was a Twin Cities guy who I knew back when he was here and I had the good fortune of working with him a couple times in the corporate arena. And to see Johnny Thompson obviously having so much fun, it was just great. And then to see Mac kind of turn up. I don't want to spoil it. But he does turn upLance: Mac turns up there near the end of the film. It was great fun, being able to work with Johnny. To be able to direct your mentor is a really special thing and that was just so much fun working with Johnny, and he was just so good in this role.John: He was such a good actor, he really had that ability to turn it on. Lance: And Pam too. John: Oh, yeah, Pam was in there as well. It was just so much fun to see them just pop up like that.Jim: A delight, the whole thing was from start to finish was a delight. I watched it by myself after my wife went to bed and I just was giggling through the whole thing.Lance: Thank you. Here's my favorite story from the whole process. I had this idea to do the trick on the telephone, The Wizard, that that anybody that is amateur magician knows the trick. Well, when Michael and I were coming up with a storyline, I had this idea of using The Wizard as part of the kidnapping thing, to find out where the assistant was being held. In order to do that, of course, I had to show what The Wizard was. The reason I wanted to include that was I wanted kids especially to be able to watch the movie and then after the movie, I wanted them to be able to perform The Wizard for their friends. After we had our premiere, my wardrobe lady from the Monte Carlo—and she also did wardrobe on the movie—she called me like a week later. Her stepdaughter, who was in junior high school at that time, the little girl had gone to school the next day and had performed The Wizard for her friends. And when I heard that, I was like, yes, touchdown.John: Mission accomplished. Lance: Mission accomplished. It's exactly what I wanted. I wanted kids to go and actually perform a magic trick for their friends.Jim: But I really liked how you then turn it around and use it as a plot device. Lance: It's integral to the story. Yes, and those are those are especially the kind of things I like with magic in movies or TV shows: where you can take something and bring it back in later as a practical device.

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with screenwriter and author Neal Marshall Stevens about his new book on horror, “A Sense of Dread (Getting Under The Skin of Horror Screenwriting).”LINKSA Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Neal's book at Michael Wiese Productions: https://mwp.com/product-author/neal-marshall-stevens/Neal on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0139605/Brian Forrest's Blog: https://toothpickings.medium.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastNeal Stevens Transcript JOHN: Neal, you have a really long and storied history in the horror cinema. Can you remember the very first horror movie that had an impact on you? NEAL: Well, actually, looking back, the first movie that scared the hell out of me wasn't a horror movie. It was actually a Disney movie called Johnny Tremaine. It was a kid's movie. And there was a scene in that movie, Johnny Tremaine was a kid during the Revolutionary War who knew Paul Revere, who, as you may remember, was a silversmith. And there's a scene in that movie, the British are coming and Paul Revere has got this urn of molten silver.It gets knocked onto a table. Johnny Tremaine trips and puts his hand face up into the molten silver and fries his hand. And I'm sure I know I, every kid in the audience goes like (sound effect.) But that's actually not the scariest part of the movie. Later on, surgeons are unwrapping his burnt hand, and they look down and they react in horror.His fingers have healed together, stuck together. We don't see it and they say, “Oh, we're going to have to cut his fingers apart,” which also happens off screen. And again, in our imagination, imagining no anesthesia back then, it's a revolutionary war. So, poor Johnny Tremaine has to have his healed together fingers cut apart. The memory of what that must be like has lasted. I must have been like five or six when I saw it. My parents dragged me to see Johnny Tremaine, it's a happy Disney movie. I'm 67 years old, so it's been over a half a century since I saw this movie and was appropriately traumatized by those images. So, Disney knew how to scare little kids. That's for sure. JOHN: He sure did. Wow. That's a horrible story. NEAL: Yeah. As for official horror movies that scared the hell out of me, again, we used to watch Phantasmic Features on the TV in Boston. I remember a movie called Teenagers from Outer Space. They weren't actually teenagers. They were all in their thirties. But anyway, these invaders had a skeleton ray that as they would aim it at someone, it would flash and you're instantly reduced literally to a skeleton. And they were, they didn't care who, so as soon as they come out of their spaceship, there's a barking dog—bzzzt!—and the dog falls down, reduced to bones. They didn't care. They would use it as a woman's climbing out of a swimming pool—bzzzt!—skeleton floating in the pool. The casualness with which completely innocent people are reduced to skeletons. Again, absolutely horrifying. Couldn't have been much older than nine or ten when I watched this movie. But the fact that human flesh has reduced the skeletons, but also the casual innocence of which people are reduced to flesh is stripped off their bones. It's terrifying to me. BRIAN: I wonder how you parlayed that early sense of, “Oh, I like horror movies” into, “I want to create horror as a genre. “ NEAL: Well, I was one of a whole generation of kids who got super eight cameras and made, you know, we made stop motion movies and made monster movies in their basements. Pursuant to that, I was writing scripts when I was 13 years old. I guess people now do it with phones. We didn't have cell phones back when I was a kid, but we had super eight cameras and then, you know, a little cartridge things that we'd slug in. And so, I made tons of those little stop motion movies down in my basement. BRIAN: Do you still have some of them? NEAL: I guess I may have them somewhere. I think I have an old creaky super eight projector somewhere. I don't think you can get a bulb for it anymore. BRIAN: I've got one up there. I wonder if it would work? NEAL: Yeah. That's the big question. I wonder if it would work? Heaven only knows. JOHN: But that's a great way to learn visual storytelling. NEAL: Yeah. When I ultimately went to NYU grad film and, and all the films that we shot the first year were all silent. First silent film then silent with sound effects, but you weren't allowed to use sync sound until you got to second year, if you made it that far. JOHN: Did you make it that far? NEAL: Yes, I did. I actually graduated. Back at NYU, it was a very rough program at the time. They cut the student enrollment in half going from first to second year. So it was, it was a rough program back then. JOHN: That's brutal. NEAL: Yeah. JOHN: So, you leave film school with something under your arm that you've shot. Where does that lead you? NEAL: It certainly didn't get me much in the way of employment at the time. I ended up going right back to NYU. I ran their equipment room of all things for something like six years. But during all those six years I was writing. They had like a computer that they used to turn out the schedules. And then when I weren't writing schedules, I was using that computer to write my screenplays using WordStar. If anyone remembers that old program. God, it was horrible, but it was free, because they had the equipment room. And eventually I sent some stuff to Laurel Entertainment, which is the company that did Tales From the Dark Side. And they had an open submission program. If you signed a release form, you could send them stuff. And I'd gone in and I'd met Tom Allen, who was their senior story editor. I had a screenplay and I went in and talked about it. He liked it. It wasn't for them, but then he invited me to submit ideas for their new series, their follow-up series to Tales from the Dark Side, which is a thing called Monsters. And I went in, and I pitched some ideas, and they bought one. And it turned out to be their premier episode of Monsters. And shortly after that, tragically, Tom Allen passed away. And the VP, Mitch Galen, invited me in and said, “Would you like to take over and be our senior story editor on Monstersand our other projects?” And meanwhile, you know, for the second part of that whole series, I was still working in the equipment room at NYU and also working as a senior story editor on Monsters and being their creative consultant and reading hundreds of scripts for Laurel Entertainment. And then eventually I quit the equipment room, and I went and I worked for them full time and wrote a bunch of episodes for Monsters. And I was a story editor on The Stand and The Langoliers— which wasn't so good—but on a bunch of other projects, it was just an enormous learning experience. And The Stand I think turned out really well. Other stuff, The Langoliers, did not work out really well. And a bunch of other projects that were not horror. BRIAN: Why do you think some things, especially, let's talk about Stephen King, why do you think some of those things adapted well and some didn't? NEAL: Well, The Langoliers was not, it wasn't that great. Wasn't that strong a project. And I think the idea, trying to make that and stretch that out into a mini-series. wasn't that strong. It wasn't that strong, the material wasn't really there. I think there are times when staying faithful to the material is the right approach. It certainly was the right approach with The Stand. Working with The Langoliers, you know, there were certainly elements of The Langoliers that were strong. And other stuff that was really just so-so. And I think if you'd had the willingness to step aside and do something different with it, it would probably have ended up—especially because they were expanding it into a mini-series—being just devoted to the original material, I think, ended up with a product that was really thin. Plus, we had hired a special effects company that the Langoliers themselves were just horrible. It was really substandard, honestly. So, it did not work out very well. BRIAN: I'm guessing with all these different projects you had to work on, you probably had to start dealing with types of horror and genres of horror that weren't in your comfort zone. Maybe not even what you wanted to do. What kind of learning curve was that for you? NEAL: You end up having to deal with a lot of different kinds of horror, especially with, you know, working in Monsters, where you just were turning stuff out tremendously fast. But also, I grew up with a certain kind of horror.I was never a huge fan of slasher stuff. I missed that whole era of horror. Certain kinds of movies appealed to me. That particular kind of transgressive material never really clicked. JOHN: Why do you think that is with you? NEAL: Because this simple act of repetitive bloodletting, for me, it always felt thin. I mean, it's not that I objected to explicit violence or explicit gore. I mean, I think that Dawn of the Deadunquestionably is one of the most brilliant horror movies ever made. And there certainly, George Romero didn't pull back from explicit violence. Or a movie like Hellraiser, the same deal. It's a question of how the filmmaker employs the use of graphic violence to elevate the material. What I've told people when you watch a movie like Dawn of the Dead, the first 10 or 15 minutes of that movie—which by the way, I saw when it virtually when it first came out and saw it in the theater—you had never seen anything like that opening scene in terms of graphic violence from being bitten and heads being blown off and all the rest. You were just put through the ringer, watching that opening. And after that opening, the movie was never that violent again. He never showed anything like that again.And you didn't have to, because you—having seen that opening scene, you were—you were so blown out of your seats. You said, “I'm watching a movie where anything could happen to anyone.” And that was a kind of really intelligent and that kind of thoughtful use of violence is what George Romero was always able to do. It was understanding how graphic images can affect the psychology of the viewer. JOHN: Do you think it's also that with Romero's films, they're actually about something, whereas a slasher film is really just about a body count, but with Romero, he always had another thing going. NEAL: Well, of course, I mean, no movie that isn't about anything is ever going to really, from my perspective, be worth watching. But I mean, even a movie like Hostel, which is exceptionally violent and harrowing, is certainly about something. And I think Eli Roth's movies, which get a really bad rap, are very much about something. He's got something to say with his depictions of violence and his images. Not necessarily to my taste. I certainly wouldn't say that he's not, he's making movies that are certainly about something. He's not a dumb filmmaker by any stretch of the imagination. JOHN: So, you work on Monsters, and then what happens? NEAL: I worked on Monsters. I worked there for around six years, and then they were acquired by a big studio, and they were shut down. And so, I was out of work. I'd known a woman named Debbie Dion from Full Moon. I figured, well, I'll give that a shot. I'll call her up and see, maybe I could write for a Full Moon. And so, I gave her a shot. I, you know, reintroduced myself and said, you know, “I'm looking to see if I could get some job, maybe writing features for Full Moon Entertainment, Charlie Band's company.” And they said, “Well, we pay around $3,000 for a feature.” And I said, “Well, I got paid more than that for writing an episode of Monsters. That doesn't seem like such a good deal.” And then my unemployment insurance ran out. BRIAN: Suddenly it's a very good deal. NEAL: Sounds like suddenly a very good deal. But, you know, I made it very clear that money buys one draft, and if you want to rewrite, you got to pay me again, because I knew what development was like, where they just expect draft after draft after draft, and I'd say, “I can't do that, that doesn't make any sense.” And also, having worked for Monsters, I had learned to write really fast. I could write a pass on a Monsters episode in two days, so I knew that I could write fast, because these were 80-page scripts. And so, I started writing for Full Moon, and over the course of like the next few years, I wrote something like... 50 or 60 features for Charlie Band. And a lot of them got made, because they're not wasting money on movies that don't get made. Tons of them got made. And in the midst of doing that, I was, you know, whenever I got a break writing a full movie, I would write spec scripts, you know, in the hopes I could sell something of my own that wasn't for $3,000. I didn't have an agent at that point. I didn't have a manager at that point. And so, I'm not really good making cold calls to people. It's not my thing. I just like to sit, write my scripts. I'd come home one day, and I saw my wife was on the phone having this long conversation with someone. When she was done, I said, “Well, who was that?” “Oh yeah. I called up to order something.” I said, “So she's really good at getting on the phone and talking to people and calling them.” And so, I convinced her to be my manager. So, she agreed. She changed, you know, she went out under her maiden name. She managed to get an option on a science fiction script that I'd written that, I mean, it was ultimately bought. It was never made. And then I decided, you know what? Horror is really my bread and butter writing for Charlie Band. But I don't really have a horror spec. And most of what was out those days in horror didn't really scare me that much. I should really write a script that would scare me. So, I wrote a script called Deader, which I thought had all the stuff in it that I thought was really scary. And Judy went out with that script, sent it to a bunch of people, sent it to some folks at Stan Winston's company, as they had a development deal. The producer that she talked to really liked it, asked if he could sort of slip it to some people. He did, he sent it to someone, a producer at Dimension, it's based in New York, and he really liked it. And they showed it to Bob Weinstein. Bob Weinstein called us on Sunday. Am I half awake? Talk to Judy. Because they didn't know that Judy was my wife. He said, “This is the best goddamn script I've read. I'm like three quarters away. Come in on Monday and we'll talk about it.” So, we came in on Monday and they bought the script. And of course, at that point, it sort of went all over town. And for a very short period of time, it was like the flavor of the month and everyone loved me. And I got myself an agent and got myself like three pictures. And as I was a really big, big to-do. From that, I also got 13 Ghosts. I had like a really big opinion of myself after, after that sale. JOHN: Has that been tempered since then? NEAL: I kind of got the opinion that like, wow, selling scripts is easy. People wanted to hire me because that script was super hot and was all over town. I learned subsequently there are flavors in writers, and I was like that flavor of the month. That fades and then you have to really do a lot more work to get things sold. That was a hard lesson to learn. But I've managed to keep working over the years. I've written many scripts, sold some, and it's been a decent career. BRIAN: I was just wondering, you were having all the success writing screenplays, when did you decide to make a jump to writing a book? NEAL: Over the last five or six years, I've been teaching. A woman that I knew from NYU, actually, Dorothy Rumpolsky had been instrumental in starting a screenwriting program at David Lynch Institute for Cinematic Studies. And she realized at one point that she had a number of students who wanted to work in a horror. She remembered me back from NYU many years ago. So, she got in touch with me and wanted to know if I was interested in mentoring those students. And I said, absolutely. I done some other online teaching at other places. And so, the way it works is, you fly out for an opening few days where you meet the students. And then you fly back to where you come from. They go back to where they come from. And it's all done remotely, the mentoring. And so, I've been doing that now for five or six years. And during that kind of get together, you meet a bunch of guest lecturers and other teachers, other mentors. And a number of those people had written books for Michael Wiese productions. And, in the course of chatting, they suggested, well, you, you know, “You have a kind of encyclopedic knowledge of horror and horror cinema. That might be a good book for Michael Wiese. Give them a call and see if you can come up with a pitch and an interesting take on it.” And so I did, and I called them and they responded. And so we were off to the races. JOHN: The book is really, maybe delightful is the wrong word, but it's a captivating book because as you read through it—you have outlined breaking down our different types of fears—you can immediately in your mind go, “Oh, that's what that movie was doing. Oh, that was that. That's what was happening there.” What was your research process like? NEAL: I think that the research kind of developed over the decades as I studied what made movies scary and what was working, not only in the movies that I was watching, but in the movies that I was writing. I mean, in the same way that when you work as a screenwriter, it becomes almost second nature to try to figure out what was working and what wasn't. Talking to fellow filmmakers and screenwriters, you have to say, “How many times do you watch a movie?” And a lot of times I will watch a movie 8, 10, 20 times. And there's a process that works when you watch a movie that many times, where you say “Certain things will work every time you watch a movie.”In the same way that you can watch a comedy and you can laugh every single time as certain things comes up. And other times, you start seeing the nuts and bolts and say, “Well, this is always working and here they're just connecting stuff.” And you start saying, “Ah, I get it. I see what they're doing. I see how they're taking this piece that works and this other piece that works and they couldn't quite, they kind of, they found some connective tissue to stick it together. I see exactly what they're doing.” And you start understanding—whether you're watching a comedy or you're watching a drama or you're watching a scary movie—they knew exactly how to make this thing scary. And this is how they're doing it. And they understood exactly how to make this thing scary. And it's like, ah, this is what they're using. Whether it is a spider crawling on someone, that's always going to work. Or, “Oh, I see, this is just a jump scare.” And the jump scare is, I understand, that's just, because a big bang, a loud noise, a hand reaching in from, that's just, that's always going to work. It's going to work no matter what. It's just a kind of placeholder scare, because they couldn't think of anything better. And there are movies where it's just jump scares. And you can always use a jump scare. You can sneak up on a cat and jab it and it'll jump. It's an instinctive response. And if a movie is just relying on jump scares, you know it's because they don't have anything better. They haven't got any deeper than just having the phone ring and they turn up the soundtrack. You can always get an audience to jump by putting a loud sound on the soundtrack. JOHN: Is there an example you can think of though, where there is a jump scare that you think is a genuinely good, effective jump scare? NEAL: I can think of a movie that has two really excellent jump scares. John Carpenter's The Thing. When the doctor's giving the electric shock to the guy's chest, and the chest opens and slams shut on his hand. Didn't expect it.That's a super great jump scare. It is perfectly integrated into that scene. Everyone jumps, but it's also a brilliant continuation of that scene. Second jump scare, when MacReady is testing everyone's blood. And saying, “We're going to do you next,” puts the needle in, and that thing jumps out of the Petri dish.Fantastic jump scare. We didn't see it coming. Everyone jumps. And it's again, it's perfectly integrated into that scene. So, two brilliant jump scares in what's already an incredibly brilliant movie. BRIAN: I remember watching the commentary on Jaws and Spielberg said he got greedy with his jump scares. He had the moment towards the end of the film, you remember that Jaws comes out of the water while it's being chummed. And he said he got this great reaction from the audience, and he wanted one more. And he went back, and he added in the scene earlier where the corpse face comes through the hole. And he said he never got the audience to react as well to the shark after he added in that corpse face coming through the hole of the ship. And I wondered, do you think there's a point of diminishing returns with jump scares in one movie? NEAL: I think there absolutely is. I mean—and I have no end of admiration for Jaws. I think it may be one of the most brilliant movies ever, and it certainly has stood the test of time. JOHN: So, we've each come armed with some movies here that I thought it would be fun to talk about them with you, so that you could sort of delve into the different types of fear that are outlined in the book and we'll just sort ofcheckerboard back and forth here. I'm going to start with one of my favorite sense of dread movies, and that's Don't Look Now, with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, directed by Nick Roeg which I saw way too young. First R rated movie I saw. I remember I knew that it was supposed to be really scary, and I went with my older brother, and we were standing in line and the seven o'clock show was letting out. And I said to my brother, “Well, it can't be that scary. They're not saying anything.” Not realizing that they had all been stunned into silence about the last five minutes of that movie. So, what are your thoughts on Don't Look Now and where does that fit? NEAL: When I talk about the sense of dread, which is what my book is about, it's the notion of those aspects of our lives that we think of as safe and secure and dependable and sacred being suddenly or unexpectedly penetrated by the unknown or the unnatural, the unexpected. And you have to say, well, what are the things that we depend on? We depend on our homes. We depend on our families. And so that relationship of parent and child, what violates that? And the loss of a child, loss is already wrenching. And so, this sense of parents having lost a child, but then this notion that, well, maybe not, maybe the child is still out there somewhere, is so deeply disturbing. And so this weird, this quest, this pursuit in them. And meanwhile, in the background, you have the sense of a killer, of killings going on. This really disturbing notion of the woman's half decayed body being pulled out of the water is just as an image is—and again, the notion of human body being reduced to mere flesh—it's deeply disturbing. And nakedness, coupled with decay, it's deeply disturbing. And all of this sort of happening in the background. We don't quite know how these pieces connect. The notion that the search for the child and the notion that there's a killer on the loose. We know, because the nature of cinematic storytelling is telling us that somehow these things are going to connect, because, I mean, in the real world, there are countless thousands of things drifting around that don't necessarily hook up. But we know that one thing is going to collide with another. And so, there's this growing sense of profound unease, because we know, somehow, this child in this Red Riding Hood cape is wandering around, it's like, is this the child? Is the child going to become embroiled in this? But what we don't, certainly don't expect is the ending that confronts us in the finale, which is so incredibly, the reversal is so terrifying and so hits us in the face of that sense of innocence—revealed in such a terrifying way—is the essence of dread. Where we expect to find innocence, we find a nightmare. JOHN: What's great about what Nick Roeg did there was—if you read Daphne du Maurier's short story—he basically shot the last paragraph of that short story. Cinematically, he figured out the way that she's laying out what's going on with Donald Sutherland's character at that moment. He figured out a way to make it cinematic. So, like you say, all the pieces suddenly fall into place in those last few seconds. And, like you said, we've been brought to this place, we had no idea that that's where it was going to turn. Neal, tell me about Enemy from Space, and what you like about that. NEAL: Enemy from Space is the second of the three Quatermass movie, adaptations of the serial. It's in the same vein as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and all these other movies about human beings who are being invaded and infested by alien forces. In this case, over the past few years—but in the context of the story—there have been rains of these tiny little meteorites. Anyone who finds them, they crack open and what's inside infests human beings. And you can find these tiny little burn marks, these V shaped marks on them. And the parasites take them over and make them into these kind of human slaves. And the premise is they serve this larger being, this kind of group entity, and they proceed to start building these atmosphere plants, with the goal ultimately to turn the earth into a colony for these beings that come from outer space. But the notion of these human beings, they have infiltrated our government, infiltrated our community, and they gradually take people over, scary enough. And they have built this enormous plant that looks, he says, this looks just like this proposed lunar base with these giant atmospheric domes. A group of people managed to infiltrate one of these bases and he looks inside, manages to get close enough to look inside one of these domes and inside are the parasites. When they're released, they grow together into this thing that looks like a giant blob. That's what it looks like outside of the human hosts. And a bunch of these guys are trapped inside of the atmosphere of plant. And they realize this thing, they can't survive outside the human body. They need methane to breathe, because that's what their home planet is like. “What we need to do is we need to pump oxygen into this dome to kill this thing. That'll destroy it.” And voices come over to say, “Look, this guy's crazy. There's nothing inside this dome. You send some representatives over, we'll show you anything you want.” And Quatermass says, “You're crazy if you go over there, you're going to be infected. You're going to be taken over.” But they managed to divide, they send the guys over and Quatermass is pleading with them, “Listen, they're going to get on this speaker. They're going to tell you that everything is fine, but you can't listen. Don't listen to them, whatever you say.” And then they hear this sound. This hideous sound of screaming coming down the pipes, the pipes that they've been sending oxygen down to the dome. They say, “What the hell is that? What's going on?” And then they look, they see the pressure has gone way up. There's something wrong. And the pipe is burst, the pipe that's sending oxygen to this dome. And they say, “What is it? What's happened?” And they look and something is dripping down through the pipe. And they say, “What is it?” It's blood. They took the guys that they sent, and they pushed them into the pipe. They say those pipes have been blocked with human pulp in order to keep the oxygen from coming into the dome. That is one of the most, again, all you see is just these drops of blood coming out of the cracked pipe, but that has resonated as one of the most terrifying moments from any movie that I saw, again, as a little kid. I've seen the movie recently and it's still incredibly terrifying. And again, the architecture of this web of pipes, the cold black and white architecture, is horrifyingly chilling. And the notion of human beings being reduced to mere flesh, being used as material for blocking a pipe. And the pipe's only like, it's like this big. So, you can imagine this person shoved into a pipe is hideous. JOHN: It is available on YouTube if anybody wants to watch it after that. Brian, do you want to ask about folk horror? BRIAN: Actually, I was going to jump ahead just because of what Neal was just talking about. I thought this would dovetail nicely into a question I had about a fear of contagion. And you can wrap body horror into this. Movies like The Thing or 28 Days Later, or probably The Quatermas Experiment as well. How does that fear of our own bodies being infected or watching another body change or be infected in unnatural ways? How does that—I don't want to use the word appeal—but how does that appeal to our sense of dread? NEAL: Well, I think you also have to run back to one of the most common— whether it's psychological or physiological—which is obsessive compulsive disorder. You say, well, what exactly is obsessive compulsive disorder? We have built in grooming behaviors, whether it's cleaning our hands, we clean our skin. That's wired into us. And when you turn the dial up too far, that turns into obsessive compulsive, obsessive hand cleaning or scratching, itching, hair pulling, all that stuff. It's wired in behavior, in the same way that dogs will scratch, we will scratch. And so, all of that, we react to it in the same way that if you see a spot of dirt on someone's forehead, it's almost impossible to “Clean that thing off. Get rid of that thing.” I mean, we're built in a certain way to respond to distortions, infections, invasions, in the same way that if someone's eye is cocked to one side, we react to it. Someone's face is distorted. We react to it negatively. We have to work not to respond to it. It may be a bug, but it may be a feature, because we are built to respond to a diseased or distorted members of our community. It's a survival trait. And so, in some ways, horror movies respond to that. Distorted human beings, Hunchback of Notre Dame or Igor or anyone else who are distorted, deformed, limbless creatures—Freaks—are employed in horror movies in a variety of different ways. BRIAN: And it's a very different thing from seeing an arm chopped off versus seeing an arm with three hands that are all operating. Both of them is something happening to your body that you might revolt towards, but it's a very different reaction though, right? NEAL: It is, but it's—in a sense—it's all variations of the same thing. There's a central human norm, and that which varies from the human norm beyond a certain point triggers a reaction that says, “That's not the way it's supposed to be.” And it's just, eyes are too close together, eyes are too far apart, eyes are too big, or there's an extra one. There's one missing. We recoil from it. We recoil from something that is too different, too far off the norm. And of course, in strictly social terms, you can say, but why, why should we? We shouldn't really respond in that way to others who are too different. But we do respond that way, and it comes with the programming in a very real degree. JOHN: How does that connect, then, to another movie on your list, The Island of Lost Souls, from 1932? NEAL: I think it's central to that list. The notion of the difference between that which is human and that which is animal. And Moreau, who experiments with making animals into human beings, but not really. And the sort of terrifying revelation when our hero and the woman—who we know to be an animal woman, but she looks fundamentally human—escape out into the woods and come across the animal person village. And the realization to what extent Moreau has been experimenting. It's not just tens or dozens. The animal people just come flooding out of the woods. And it's just hundreds. And the extent and the depth and the kind of nightmarish quality, they're all different. They're all horrible. And it's just like, what has Moreau been doing? He experiments with these animals, gets them to a certain state, and then he just discards them and moves on to something else. This utterly careless, sadistic god of this army of nightmares. And you sort of see when they do their, you know, “Are we not men?” And you just see row upon row upon row of these hideous nightmare faces. And you just say, “My God, what has this guy been doing for years? Just making these monsters.” JOHN: It's a classically creepy movie. I do want to ask you about the classic ghost story movie, The Haunting, and what that says about our fears. If you can, maybe tie that into Ghostwatch, because there's a similar sort of thing going on there. NEAL: They're both intriguing. They both are opening us up to this notion of unseen nightmare forces, especially the original Haunting, which shows us nothing. All you ever see: Doorknob turning. A face that may or may not be in the wall. This horribly loud banging on the door. A moment where someone thinks that her hand is being held, but there's no one there. It is simply this notion of a house that is born bad, but never really fully explained. Again, you have this idea of the world itself that should be well behaved, that should be governed by comprehensible natural laws. But there's something deeper and darker and incapable of truly being understood, nevermind being controlled. And if you just prod it a little bit too much, you're going to open it up to forces that are utterly destructive and utterly malevolent. And in both of these cases, you have this man of science and his team that are going to find out. “We're going to find out for sure whether there really are ghosts, whether there really is a supernatural, whether it really is life after death. We're going to nail this down for science.” Yeah, don't do that. Don't do that. These are things that are, that are not meant to be explored, not meant to be examined. Go back. BRIAN: I'm reminded of Van Helsing's sign off on the original Dracula, where he said, “Just remember, there really are such things in this world.” NEAL: Yeah. Yeah. And, and the same thing is true in some ways on a much more terrifying scale with Ghostwatch, where it's just, it's this kind of, “It's all just fun and Halloween, we're going to explore this. It's the most haunted house in Britain.” And it's broadcasters whose faces everyone knew at the time, and they were playing themselves. Going to this haunted house where you had these poltergeist phenomena. And we're all going to, “We're going to do it live and call in with your own experiences about being haunted.” And it all just goes so horribly wrong. JOHN: Now, Neal, I just watched that for the first time this week. Heard about it for years. I had no idea that those were real broadcasters. I thought they were really good actors. But to someone in Britain watching that, those are faces they saw all the time? NEAL: Yeah. Those are real broadcasters. They had their own shows. They were real, the real deal. JOHN: Wow. I highly recommend renting it because—it'll test your patience a little tiny bit, because it is quite banal for quite a while, as they lead you into it. But now this new bit of information that these are all faces that that audience who saw it, quote unquote, live that night, it's as terrifying as I imagined the Orson Welles' War the Worlds would have been. Because it seems very real. NEAL: And apparently the way they did it, is that there was a number you could call in. And if you called in that number, they would tell you, it's like, “Don't worry, this is all just a show.” But so many people were calling in, they couldn't get through. BRIAN: This really is War of the Worlds. NEAL: So, they never were able to get to that message that would tell them, don't worry, it's all just a show. So apparently it panicked the nation, because part of the premise was at a certain point, the ghost that was haunting the house got into the show. And so, the studio itself became haunted. It was really spectacularly well done. JOHN: It is. It's great. Let's just sort of wrap up here real quick with Neal, if you have any advice for beginning screenwriter about how to best create a really powerful and effective horror screenplay, any little tips. NEAL: Well, first of all, and I touched on this before, jump scares don't work on the page. You need the loud bang. You need the hand reaching in from the side. You describe that and it doesn't work. So, you have to rely on creating that sense of dread. And while writing screenplays, you have to keep things tight. The concept, the idea—in the same way comedy screenplays have to be funny—scary screenplays have to be scary. It has to be scary on the page. If it's not scary on the page, you're not going to sell the screenplay. And that's the fundamental trick. You got to make it scary on the page. JOHN: Excellent advice. All right, let's just quickly, each one of us, tell our listeners a recent favorite horror film that you've seen in the last couple years.I'll start with you, Brian. BRIAN: Just last night, I saw Haunting in Venice. And it worked because I had seen the other Kenneth Branagh/Agatha Christie adaptations, and I was very familiar with, and you know, you already know generally that kind of detective whodunit story: it's going to be very, you know, using logic and rationality.And when they had this episode that was sort of a one off—sort of a departure from that usual way that mysteries are solved—it was very effective. I think if I'd seen it without having already watched a bunch of Agatha Christie adaptations, I would have said, “Oh, that's an okay Halloween movie.” But having seen those other ones, it was an excellent Halloween movie. JOHN: Excellent. That's on my list. The movie I would recommend, which really surprised me, my wife literally dragged me to it because it was a French film called Final Cut, which is a French remake of a Japanese film called One Cut of the Dead. At about the 30-minute mark, I was ready to walk out, and I thought, why are we watching this? And then they took us on a ride for the next hour that, it's a really good ride. It's called Final Cut. BRIAN: And this is not to be confused with the Robin Williams Final Cut from... ? JOHN: Not to be confused with that, no. Or if you can go back to the original and watch the Japanese version. But what's great about the French version is they are literally remaking the Japanese version, to the point where they've made all the characters have Japanese names. Which the French people struggle with enormously. It's a highly effective film. Neal, how about you? Take us home. NEAL: Okay. It's not a new movie, but I just saw it very recently. It is a Chilean stop motion animated film called The Wolf House. It describes the adventures of a young Chilean woman who escapes from a repressive German colony and ends up in this bizarre house in which she blends into the walls. She's escaped with two pigs who grow up with her in this house, but again, nothing, no way in which I describe it is going to convey to you how deeply disturbing and chilling this movie is. It really is quite indescribably bizarre and disturbing and just well worth your time to watch. It's not quite like any other movie I've ever seen.

In this episode, we'll explore many of the expenses in your life that might drastically change (one way or another) in retirement. We'll break those expenses down further to see which ones are the top priorities and analyze some of the other factors that impact your cash flow in retirement. Helpful Information: PFG Website: https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/ Contact: 813-286-7776 Email: info@pfgprivatewealth.com Disclaimer: PFG Private Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. All statements and opinions expressed are based upon information considered reliable although it should not be relied upon as such. Any statements or opinions are subject to change without notice. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investment involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Information expressed does not take into account your specific situation or objectives and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for any individual. Listeners are encouraged to seek advice from a qualified tax, legal, or investment adviser to determine whether any information presented may be suitable for their specific situation. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Transcript of Today's Show: For a full transcript of today's show, visit the blog related to this episode at https://www.pfgprivatewealth.com/podcast/ ----more---- Marc: Welcome back to the podcast. It's Retirement Planning-Redefined, with John and Nick here with me to talk investing, finance, retirement, and mastering retirement cashflow, part one, is going to be the topic today. We're understanding just changing expenses. We're going to break this into really a two-parter here, obviously, by calling it part one. And we'll do a little more focus on some of the other things on the next session. But for today, I want to explore some of the expenses in life and how they just change as we're moving some things ... as we're moving from working into retirement. And things you guys see with your clients and how you work through that process for them. So that's the topic today. Let's get into it. John, first of all, how are you doing, buddy?   John: I'm doing all right. Getting ready for the summertime here.   Marc: If it happens. I don't know what's going on in the south. I'm in North Carolina, and we've had one 90 degree day, and it's almost July. Totally unusual for us, so it's very, very weird.   Nick: Oh, it's hot here.   Marc: Yeah. It's like two states seem to be in a weird spot. I don't know what's going on with the middle of the south here. It's very strange this year. But Nick, I heard you chime in. How are you, my friend?   Nick: Doing pretty good.   Marc: Yeah. So you guys are sweltering, is that what you're saying?   Nick: It's definitely hot, yeah.   Marc: Well, kick a little this way because I don't know what's going on. It should be warmer here than it has been. So, very weird.   Nick: Well, I'll trade.   Marc: Okay. All right. Yeah. Like today, it's ... well, we're getting a ton of rain. Today, taping this podcast, it's 72 for the high, and tonight's overnight low is 58. That doesn't happen usually in North Carolina in late July or late June.   Nick: Yeah. That is pretty surprising. That's cool for North Carolina.   Marc: Very, very weird. So I don't know, Mother Nature is off her meds, I guess. But what can you do? So let's get into this conversation, guys, about changing cash flow, before I keep going down that tangent. I've got a few parts here I want to run through. What are some of the expenses that might drastically change one way or the other, either to saving us money or to costing us more money? Whichever way you guys want to take this, whatever you've seen with your clients. But let's start it off with housing. I think housing is probably the number one expense in retirement. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but what do you think?   Nick: Yeah. I would say for a lot of people that maintain a mortgage past retirement, it's definitely a significant monthly expense. One thing that we are seeing here with the tick up in interest rates over the last 12 months, we had had conversations with multiple clients from 2018 through 2021 about taking advantage of low interest rates and keeping their mortgage and that sort of thing. And for a lot of people, that makes them feel uncomfortable. But to a person, everyone that we've talked to that has done that, now that rates are where they are, they've been pretty happy about that decision and being able to take advantage and lock in those low rates. But for those people that just naturally, with the schedule mortgage that they had, and ended up paying off the mortgage by the time they retired, that drop in expenses is usually a big help. I would say one thing that jumps out that's a reminder that we use for people is ... especially because the homeowner's insurance market here has now gone completely insane. Taxes and insurance don't go away. So I can't tell you how many times we've had a conversation where maybe somebody had a mortgage that was $3,000 a month, and they're like, well, once I retire, that 3,000 a month is going to go away. And we point out, well, hey, about half of that is. The rest of it's for taxes and insurance. So sometimes that drop in expense isn't quite as much as they thought it was going to be.   Marc: Gotcha. Yeah. And it's easy to do, even with downsizing, because the market's been high. So it's not always just lowering things just to go to that downsizing piece. John, what's your thoughts there?   John: Yeah, I would say the downsizing is a big part of it. Not only if you downsize, you might be able to get some equity out of your house there. So if you downsize, buy a two or $300,000 house, you get some cash that you could do something with. But then you start looking at smaller house, less homeowners insurance, less maintenance costs, things like that, it could really be a pretty significant savings. Especially, as Nick mentioned here, with homeowners insurance. I think mine went up like 60 or 70% in a year, which was ... ... I've heard a lot of people. At first, I thought it was just me. And then I talked to some clients, friends, family, and it seemed across the board that it just shot up.   Marc: That's hefty.   Nick: Yeah, there's a lot people that are falling between five and $10,000 a year now. For homeowners insurance down here, it's gone just wild.   Marc: Well, I imagine the big hurricane added a lot to that, right? That's probably part of it. From last year.   Nick: Yeah, yeah.   Marc: Yeah, for sure. Insurance companies are like, we got to recoup some money. How are we going to do that? 60% hikes. All right, no more work stuff. Category two on the changing in expenses. I think we probably assume for the most part that no more work stuff means we're going to save a little bit of money.   John: Yeah. So this is something that when we do planning, we definitely hit on. We have different categories of current expenses and then retirement expenses, and then we actually go one further and we're looking at advanced age expenses. But this is one where you're not commuting anymore, or at least to work. So depending on what your commute was, you could be saving quite a bit on gas, car maintenance expenses, things like that. And then the big one, I know when Nick and I worked in West Shore, was the lunch expense. Where it's like every time for lunch it's like, all right, where are we going? A good excuse to get out of the office and just get a change of scenery, you find you're going out to lunch every day. That does tend to add up quite a bit.   Marc: Oh, yeah. You can spend some dough that way, for sure. So I think in this category, we feel like ... and this one I think maybe drives a lot of people feeling like, oh, I'm going to spend less money in retirement. Right, Nick? I mean, this is one of those things. Well, I'm not doing all those things now, so I'm going to be saving money. But you're also doing more stuff because you don't have to go to work, so you may not save as much as you think.   Nick: Yeah. I would also say too, that this post-COVID work from home shift has prepared a lot more people to have a better idea of the expenses that have changed. We do have a fair amount of clients that used to commute, and no longer do. And so they've gotten a peek into what that looks like. And people are creatures of habit. Inevitably, they develop new things that they do, and usually there's other expenses that replace previous ones, but-   Marc: There's always something, right?   Nick: Yeah. But oftentimes, there are reasonable reductions in some of those work-related expenses.   Marc: Okay. Let's go to healthcare. This one here, this one to me seems like this is not going to be going into the positive. This is not going to be putting money back in our pocket. More than likely, this is going to cost us more.   Nick: Yeah. I mean, for a big chunk of people, especially if they work at a company that has pretty good health benefits, and maybe they haven't had their kids on their plan for a while, so it's just them and a spouse or them solo. Oftentimes, the shift to what we budget for post-age 65 Medicare-related premiums, oftentimes it goes up for people. So we typically budget about $4,000 a year, and we have a more aggressive inflation number that we use on that. Oftentimes, people come in less than that, especially with a high deductible plan, those sorts of things. I just had this conversation the other day with someone, where they were going to have a pretty substantial jump. And they had worked for the same company for a long time, didn't realize-   Marc: You mean a jump in the premiums?   Nick: Yes. Yep. They had worked for the same company for a long time. It was big company and had really good health benefits, and premiums were going to go up. So it can be a little surprising that way. If it's somebody that's shifting more from the perspective of, kids recently got off their plan and they're cutting back on ... maybe went from a regular health plan to a high deductible, those sorts of things. It can be a drop. But honestly, I see it more neutral or go up than I see it go down.   Marc: Yeah, definitely. John, taxes, let me hit you with this one. This is a big misnomer that's been around for years. That when we get to retirement, our taxes are just generally lower because we're not getting a paycheck, we're not making as much. But more times than not, eight out of 10 times people are not in a lower tax bracket.   John: No. Typically, they tend to be in the same, if not, maybe a little bit lower. Because what you're really trying to do when you do planning is you want to keep the person's income where it was while they were working.   Marc: Right. You're trying to fill in the ... you're shortening the short shortfall. You're pulling from our assets to make up the shortfall based on Social Security or if you have a pension or whatever those kinds of things are. So you're trying to keep the numbers basically the same, correct?   John: Exactly, yeah. So we are trying to keep the numbers the same. And we find a lot of people ... I would say we find the majority of people have most of their money in pre-tax accounts. So what you'll find is when you're pulling out of the pre-tax accounts, you're paying taxes on it. So this is really important when it comes to planning, where you ... and we harp on this constantly. It's a matter of setting yourself up to adjust. So maybe if you have some tax-free money, some after-tax dollars in some other accounts, you can really try to eliminate ... or not eliminate. But try to lower what your taxes are going into retirement. And I'll say one thing that happens quite often with clients, and this is only maybe a year or two that we see in retirement, is they just have a couple of years of just massive expenses where ... we just had someone that's purchasing a second home and they need to pull out of their retirement account. And all of a sudden, it's like in that given year, that's going to be a big tax hit. Or it's a health expense. Or I've had other ones where they want to do a remodel on their house and it's like, well, I got to pull money out of my account. And everything is pre-taxed, so they really get ... we see a significant increase in their taxes in those years.   Marc: Yeah. And that's why we want to get tax efficient, if we can. And maybe that's worth looking at, trying to maybe move some money so we don't have that tax time bomb sitting there waiting on us. Some different things. And speaking of actually that, Nick, let's go to the next one here because you can chime in, it fits well with that. Is one of the biggest things we're doing is pumping money, hopefully, especially the last 10 years of working, into our retirement account. Maybe that 401K that John was just talking about. And therefore we're growing those dollars. And that is an expense that goes away once we stop working, we're no longer feeding that.   Nick: Yeah. That deferral is usually the lowest hanging fruit of expenses or cash flow going down.   Marc: Money back in our pocket, kind of thing, right?   Nick: Yeah, exactly. That outflow is usually the biggest drop, especially if it's ... if you're talking a couple that is essentially, maybe they're both maxing out or pretty close to maxing out, they're saving around 25,000. That's $50,000 a year. Granted, that's the money that they're used to living on anyways.   Marc: Yeah. Because we weren't seeing that. When we're working, it's going straight to the paycheck ... or straight to the 401, for example. But now that we're not working, we also don't have the paycheck. So to me, is it truly a savings or is it a wash, because you weren't seeing it before either? You know what I mean?   Nick: Yeah. I think for a lot of people it's a wash. Realistically, in the day-to-day setting and from a lifestyle perspective, it tends to be a bit of a wash.   Marc: Okay. Yeah.   Nick: Yeah, it's more of an on-paper reduction, more than anything.   Marc: Makes sense.   Nick: And in theory, when you start ... if you want to nitpick a little bit. The money that you defer into those plans, you still pay payroll taxes on it. So there's a little bit of a savings there. So that's something that can factor in. And one of the changes that fits in with both the tax and retirement things is a lot of times at that point in time, they're no longer claiming kids. Maybe the mortgage is paid off. So from a deduction perspective, there's also a change as well from the standpoint of what they're able to deduct versus what they can deduct in retirement.   Marc: Okay. And so what we're doing is we're talking about these categories here on understanding how our expenses are going to change, whether it's to the plus or to the minus. And then we'll talk a little bit more later on about how that's going to affect us in our overall expenses and some things to cover in ways to be more efficient in that. So let's continue on with a couple more categories here and then we'll wrap it up for this podcast. So we went through housing, work stuff, healthcare, taxes, the retirement savings account when we're no longer feeding the 401 animal. John, so you mentioned earlier travel and leisure, when you were talking about there's different things we're going to spend money on. So if every Saturday is the day I spend the most money, well, guess what retirement is?   John: Every day seems like it's a Saturday.   Marc: It's a bunch of Saturdays, right?   John: Yep.   Marc: It's Groundhog Day.   John: The more time you have, you find yourself trying to fill the gap of what to do. And we see a lot of people that are, if they're like golfing, they tend to be golfing a little bit more. Or fishing or whatever it might be. I'll see-   Marc: But that's the point, right? That's the point of retirement. It's what we're striving for. But I think the scary part is, is if we haven't budgeted for how much we're ... the activity. That's when we can maybe shortfall ourselves.   John: Exactly. Yeah. That's where it's important where you're doing a cashflow analysis for retirement. Like I said, we typically look at retirement expenses. We'll look at what the person does for hobbies and try to estimate, okay, this is what we can expect. And you always want to go over the amount, you never want to go under.   Marc: I was going to ask you that. Yeah. You want to-   John: Yeah, you always want to go over, because-   Marc: ... inflate it a little bit.   John: Yeah, exactly. I'll tell you this ... and my wife doesn't listen to the podcast. When she's at home more, I start to notice my Amazon bill goes up and packages end up at the door. So when there's a lot more downtime, you tend to say, okay, what's out there? Oh, let me go run to the store. Let me go do this real quick. And all those things add up to just added expenses, which fine-   Marc: Yeah. Well, sitting on the computer or the phone, you're just like, I'm bored, I'm not doing anything. Next thing you know, you're on some sort of shopping site because you're like, I was thinking about this or that, or a new set of golf clubs. Right, it's easy to do.   John: Home projects because Pinterest is giving you all these different ideas that you should be doing with your home. So yeah, all those things are up.   Nick: All right, John. This is not a therapy session.   Marc: No, but I mean he's right, though. I mean, it totally ... and people do that.   John: So Marc, that's coming from the single guy right now.   Marc: Right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. And you mentioned, you were talking about projects, DIY projects or Pinterest. We're right in the middle of rebuilding ... I'm building a billiards room here next to my office for the pool table. And it's just, scope-creep has taken over. It's like, oh, I can ... I factored in the budget. I'm like, I could do it for this amount of money. And I'm way over budget. And that's, again, if you're retired ... I'm still working. But if I was retired, that could be a real problem. If I let scope-creep get in there and I'm spending 25% more than I budgeted for this project, that could be an issue. So you want to make sure that you are inflating it, to your point. Puff those numbers up a little bit, just to be on the safe side.   Nick: Oh yeah, big time. I don't think I've seen anybody come in under budget on anything in the last three years.   Marc: Yeah. And that's with professionals, let alone doing it yourself, right?   Nick: For sure.   Marc: Okay. So that's travel and leisure. So the last one here, last category, insurance. Many people, guys, walk into retirement saying, well, I don't need insurance anymore. That's also that old standard, as far as the financial services world. Well, who needs ... why do you need insurance if your kids are grown and you don't have to replace your income because you're not worried about sending them to school. Or all that kind of stuff that you guys have heard probably a million times.   Nick: Yeah. So we'll see ... one of the most common insurances that go away, whether it's at retirement or early in retirement, is life insurance. So we obviously emphasize the fact that a death early on in retirement is the bigger risk, especially if there's outstanding debt, those sorts of things, versus later on in retirement. So sometimes we'll have people that, maybe they've got three to five years left on their term policy and the premiums aren't prohibitive. And we'll just them keep the coverage because there's still a mortgage, or just that additional money if something were to happen would be a big boost to the surviving spouse. But disability definitely goes away because disability insurance, by definition ensures your ability to work. So if you're not working, then you're not insuring anything. So that's something that drops. And then some of these supplemental policies that maybe were provided by the employer, aren't portable and you can't take them with you anyway. So some of those things will drop off. So that's definitely something that can be adjusted and adapted to reduce some of the costs.   Marc: Well, I think for every situation, insurance is one of those questions, John, that goes either way. Some people may not, when you guys are developing and looking through the plan, maybe insurance isn't needed. But then again, maybe it is. Or maybe they're using an insurance policy for the cash value policy side of things or whatever. So this one is one I think could go either direction.   John: It definitely could go either way, it really depends on the individual. And like we were just talking about here, each person, whatever is important to them will dictate whether your insurance is going to be going up or down. That's really what it comes down to is, each individual, what they value and what they want to protect with insurance and what they're ... oh, okay. I'm okay without it.   Marc: Well, and that's a good way to think about what we're going to get into for the next podcast, is really assessing must-haves, nice-to-haves, things of that nature. And then how other aspects in the financial services world could affect those categories we just ran down. So we're going to wrap it up this week. So again, these are just the expenses categories, and some major ones here to think about how they may change to the plus or to the minus with our cash flow in retirement. And we'll be back next week with the second half of this conversation. So do yourself a favor, if you haven't done so yet. Reach out to the team if you don't have a strategy or a plan in place, and get started with a consultation and a conversation for yourself. You can find the guys at pfgprivatewealth.com. That's pfgprivatewealth.com, where you can get started today on a strategy for yourself. Reach out to John and Nick there. And guys, thanks for hanging out. I'll see you next week ... well, in two weeks on the podcast. Nick, have a good one.   Nick: See you.   Marc: All right, John. Thanks, buddy.   John: Sure.   Marc: And I'll catch you later. We'll see you guys here on retirement Planning-Redefined, with John and Nick.

John Mille, Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's UK joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss how retail companies are using cloud services. John describes the lessons he's learned since joining the Sainsbury's UK team, including why it's important to share knowledge across your team if you don't want to be on call 24/7,  as well as why he doesn't subscribe to the idea that every developer needs access to production. Corey and John also discuss an open-source project John created called ECS Compose-X.About JohnJohn is an AWS Community Builder (devtools), Open Source enthusiast, SysAdmin born in the cloud, and has worked with AWS since his very first job. He enjoys writing code and creating projects. John likes to focus on automation & architecture that delivers business value, and has been dabbling with data & the wonderful world of Kafka for the past 3 years.Links Referenced: AWS Open-Source Roundup newsletter blog post about ECS Compose-X: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/automating-your-ecs-container-architecture-deployments-with-ecs-composex/ ECS Compose-X: https://docs.compose-x.io/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mille/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnPre32286850 TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: It's easy to **BEEP** up on AWS. Especially when you're managing your cloud environment on your own!Mission Cloud un **BEEP**s your apps and servers. Whatever you need in AWS, we can do it. Head to missioncloud.com for the AWS expertise you need. Corey: Do you wish your developers had less permanent access to AWS? Has the complexity of Amazon's reference architecture for temporary elevated access caused you to sob uncontrollably? With Sym, you can protect your cloud infrastructure with customizable, just-in-time access workflows that can be setup in minutes. By automating the access request lifecycle, Sym helps you reduce the scope of default access while keeping your developers moving quickly. Say goodbye to your cloud access woes with Sym. Go to symops.com/corey to learn more. That's S-Y-M-O-P-S.com/coreyCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Today my guest is a long-time listener, first-time caller. John Mille is a Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's, which is UK-speak for ‘grocery store.' John, thank you for joining me.John: Hi, Corey. Thanks for having me.Corey: So, I have to begin with, I guess, the big question that I used to run into people in San Francisco with all the time. They would work at Walmart Labs and they would mention in conversation that they work at Walmart, and people who weren't aware that there was a labs out here figured they were a greeter at the grocery store. Do you ever wind up with people making that sort of fundamental assumption around the fact, oh, you work at Sainsbury's as a checker or whatnot?John: No. But it actually is one of the—if you look at one of the job descriptions from Sainsbury's, the first thing is, why would you join a retail company to do tech? And as it turns out, tech—I mean, I think retail companies, as any other companies in the world, rely on Cloud more and more and more. And I think that one of the things that is interesting today is, if you look at the landscape of retailers, I've heard many times people saying, “We don't want to go for AWS because we're giving money to the competition.” And actually, I think AWS does a fantastic job overall giving you all the tools to actually beat them as your competition. And as it turns out, we've had really, really great success running a lot of our workloads on AWS for many, many years now.Corey: On some level, if you can't come to terms with the idea of Amazon as competition, you shouldn't be using AWS, regardless of what industry you're in, because their entire company strategy is yes. It's very hard to start to even come up with industries that they don't have some form of presence within. On some level, that's a problem. In fact a lot of levels, that's something of a problem.Everyone tends to wind up viewing the world in a bunch of different ways. I like to divide companies into two groups. More or less it's, is the AWS bill one of the top three line items at the company? And if the answer's no, on some level, you know, that usually is an indicator that there's a sustainable business there that, you know, both our grandparents and our grandchildren will be able to recognize, in the fullness of time. You absolutely have a business that winds up falling into that category, whereas, “Oh yeah, I fix the AWS bill,” yeah, my parents would have no idea what I do and my kids don't have much of a better one. It feels like it's very point-in-time type of problem. At least I hope.Technology is not the core of what grocery stores tend to do, but I also don't get the sense that what you're doing is sitting there doing the back office corporate IT style of work, either. How do you use technology in the overall context of the business?John: Well, so we use it in a very wide variety of sense. So, you obviously have everything that has to do with online shopping, orders and all of those sort of things, which obviously, especially with the drive of Covid and being everybody from home, has been a huge driver to improve our ability to deliver to customers. But certainly, I think that Sainsbury's sees AWS as a key partner to be able to go and say we want to deliver more value. And so, there's been a number of transformation over the years to—and one of the reasons I was hired is actually to be part of one of those transformation, where we're going to take existing infrastructure servers that literally—I usually say to people, “Oh, are we doing an upgrade this month? Has somebody gotten their little brush to go and brush onto the hard drives to make sure that nothing is going to die?” And actually do that transformation and move over to the cloud in order to never have to really worry about whether or not they have to manage hardware and infrastructure.Corey: It's strange in that I never got very deep into containers until I was no longer hands-on hardware, managing things. I was more or less doing advisory work and then messing around with them. And you'd think given my proclivities historically, of being very unlucky when it comes to data, you would think that this would be great because, oh yeah, you blow away an ephemeral container? Well, that's kind of the point. We'll all laugh and it'll re-instantiate itself and life goes on.But no. Making fun of them was more or less how I tended to do approach them for the longest time until I started to see them a little bit… well I guess less as a culture, less as a religion, and more as an incredibly versatile packaging format, which is probably going to annoy the people I know who are the packaging [unintelligible 00:04:58] for Linux distributions. How do you tend to view them? And how did you start using them?John: Right. So, that's a great question. So historically, I was a student at, I think the school were one of the original creators of Docker were. And one of the things that you learn when you do development at the school is that, you know, containers [unintelligible 00:05:18] new invention. Docker, I think, came on the platform as the way to, you know, give everybody a great framework, a great API, to drive the deployment of containers in the world and bundle them and ship them around the world, on your laptop and somebody else's, and help a little bit with, you know, solving the problem of it works on my laptop, but not just on the laptop properly. Maybe.It's obviously gone viral over the years and I really enjoy containers; I quite like containers. What I find interesting is what people are going to do with. And I think that over the last few years, we've seen a number of technologies such as Kubernetes and others come into the scene and say—and trying to solve people's problem, but everybody seems to be doing, sort of, things on their own way. And historically, I started off using ECS, when it was terrible and you didn't have security groups per containers and all of this. But over the years, you know, you learn, and AWS has improved the service quite significantly with more and more features.And I think we are today in the place where there's this landscape, I think, where a lot of workloads are going to be extremely ephemeral and you can go [unintelligible 00:06:28], you know, wherever you want and you have a bit—if you have a platform or workflow that you need to have working in different places, maybe Kubernetes could be an easy way to have a different sort of sets of features that allows you to move around in maybe an easier way. But that also comes with a set of drawbacks. Again, I look at using EKS, for example, and I see okay, I have to manage IAM in our back now, whereas if I used something like ECS, for the whatever the [unintelligible 00:06:56] cloud vendor of choice, I don't have to deal with any of this. So, I think it's finding the fine balance between how you do orchestration of containers now and what works for you and is any sustainable over the time, more than about are you going to use containers? Because the chances are, somebody is using containers.Corey: My experiences and workflows and constraints are radically different than that of other folks because for a lot of the things I'm building, these are accounts that are I'm the only person that has access to them. It is me. So, the idea of fine-grained permissions for users from an ARBAC perspective doesn't really factor into it. Yes, yes, in theory, I should have a lot of the systems themselves with incidents roles being managed in safe and secure ways, but in many cases, the AWS account boundary is sufficient for that, depending on what it is we're talking about. But that changes when you start having a small team of people working with you and having to collaborate on these things.And we do a little bit of that with some of our consulting stuff that isn't just the shitpost stuff I build for fun. But there's multiple levels beyond that. You are clearly in a full-blown enterprise at this point where there are a bunch of different teams working on different things, all ideally going in the same direction. And it's easy to get stuck in the weeds of having to either go through central IT for these things, which gives rise to shadow IT every time you find a corporate credit card in the wild, or it winds up being everyone can do what they want, but then there's no consensus, there's no control, there's no architectural similarity. And I'm not sure which path is worse in some respects. How do you land on it?John: Right. So, what I've seen done in companies that works very well—and again, to the credit of my current company—is one of the things they've done really well is build a hub of people who are going to manage solely everything that has to do with accounts access, right? So, the control, IAM, Security Hub, all of those sorts of things, for you. There's things that are mandatory that you can't deal without, you have permissions boundary, that's it, you have to use those things, end of story. But beyond that point, once you have access to your accounts, you've been given all of the access that is necessary for you to deliver application and deploy them all the way up to production without asking permission for anybody else apart from your delivery managers, potentially.And I think from there, because there is the room to do all of this, one of the things that we've done within my business unit is that we've put in place a framework that enables developers—and when I say that it really is a question of allowing them to do everything they have to do, focus on the code, and I know it's a little catchy [unintelligible 00:09:33] a phrase that you hear these days, but the developers really are the customers that we have. And all that we do is to try to make sure that they have a framework in place that allows them to do what they need and deploy the applications in a secure fashion. And the only way to do that for us was to build the tools for them that allows them to do all of that. And I honestly haven't checked a single service IAM policies in a very are longtime because I know that by providing the tools to developers, they don't have this [will 00:10:05] to go and mess with the permissions because their application suddenly doesn't have the permissions. They just know that with the automation we've providing them, the application gets the access it needs and no more.Corey: On some level, it feels like there's a story around graduated development approach where in a dev environment you can do basically whatever you want with a big asterisk next to it. That's the same asterisk, by the way, next to the AWS free tier. But as you start elevating things into higher environments, you start to see gating around things like who has access to what, security reviews, et cetera, et cetera, and ideally, by the time you wind up getting into production, almost no one should have access and that access that people do have winds up being heavily gated. That is, of course, the vision that folks have. In practice, reality is what happens instead of what we plan on. The idea of it works in theory, but not in production is of course, why I call my staging environment ‘theory.' Does that tend to resonate as far as what you've seen in the wild?John: Yeah. Very much so. And when I joined the company, and we put together our [standard 00:11:11] pipelines for developers to be able to do everything, the rule that I would give to my team—so I manage a small team of cloud engineers—the one rule I would say is, “We have access to prod because we need to provision resources, but when we're going to build the pipelines for the developers, you have to build everything in such a way that the developers will only have read-only access to the production environment, and that is only to go and see their logs.” And at least try to foster this notion that developers do not need access to production, as much as possible because that avoids people going and do something they shouldn't be doing in those production environments.Now, as the pipeline progresses and applications get deployed to production, there are some operational capabilities that people need to have, and so in that case, what we do is we try to fine-tune what do people need to do and grant those people access to the accounts so that they can perform the jobs and I don't have to be woken up at two in the morning. The developers are.Corey: One thing that I think is going to be a cause of some consternation for folks—because I didn't really think about this in any meaningful sense until I started acting as a consultant, which means you're getting three years of experience for every year that you're in the wild, just by virtue of the variety of environments you encounter—on some level, there's a reasonable expectation you can have when you're at a small, scrappy startup, that everyone involved knows where all the moving parts live. That tends to break down with scale. So, the idea of a Cloud Center of Excellence has been bandied around a lot. And personally, I hate the term because it implies the ‘Data Center of Mediocrity,' which is a little on the nose for some people at times. So, the idea of having a sort of as a centralized tiger team that has the expertise and has the ability to go on deep dives and sort of loan themselves out to different teams seems to be a compromise between nobody knows what they're doing and, every person involved should have an in-depth knowledge of the following list of disciplines.For example, most folks do not need an in-depth primer on AWS billing constructs. They need about as much information fits on an index card. Do you find that having the centralized concentration of cloud knowledge on a particular team works out or do you find that effectively doing a rotating embedding story is the better answer?John: It varies a lot, I think, because it depends on the level of curiosity of the developers quite a lot. So, I have a huge developer background. People in my team are probably more coming from ex-IT environments or this sort of operation and then it just naturally went into the cloud. And in my opinion, is fairly rare to find somebody that is actually good at doing both AWS and coding. I am by no means really, really great at coding. I code pretty much every day but I wouldn't call myself a professional developer.However, it does bring to my knowledge the fact that there are some good patterns and good practices that you can bring into building your applications in the cloud and some really bad ones. However, I think it's really down to making sure that the knowledge is here within the team. If there's a specialized team, those really need to be specialists. And I think the important thing then is to make sure that the developers and the people around you that are curious and want to ask questions know that you're available to them to share that knowledge. Because at the end of the day, if I'm the only one with the knowledge, I'm going to be the one who is always going to be on call for this or doing that and this is no responsibility that I want. I am happy with a number of responsibilities, but not to be the only person to ever do this. I want to go on holidays from time to time.So, at the end of the day, I suppose it really is up to what people want or expect out of their careers. I do a job that it was a passion for me since I was about 14 years old. And I've always been extremely curious to understand how things work, but I do draw the line that I don't write anything else than Python these days. And if you ask me to write Java, I'll probably change job in the flip of a second. But that's the end of it. But I enjoy understanding how Java things work so that I can help my developers make better choices with what services in AWS to use.Corey: On some level, it feels like there's a, I guess, lack of the same kind of socialization that startups have sort of been somewhat guided by as far as core ethos goes, where, oh whatever I'm working on, I want to reach out to other people, and, “Hey, I'm trying to solve this problem. What is it that you have been working on that's germane to this and how can we collaborate together?” It has nothing to do, incidentally, with the idea that, oh, big company people aren't friendly or are dedicated or aren't good or aren't well-connected; none of that. But there are so many people internally that you're spending your time focusing on and there's so much more internal context that doesn't necessarily map to anything outside of the company that the idea of someone off the street who just solved a particular problem in a weird way could apply to what a larger company with, you know, regulatory burdens, starts to have in mind, it becomes a little bit further afield. Do you think that that's accurate? Do you think that there's still a strong sense of enterprise community that I'm just potentially not seeing in various ways because I don't work at big companies?John: It's a very fine line to walk. So, when I joined the company, I was made aware that there's a lot of Terraform and Kubernetes, which I went [unintelligible 00:16:28] all the way with CloudFormation is yes. So, that was one of the changes I knew I would have. But I can move an open mind and when I looked around at, okay, what are the Terraform modules—because I used Terraform with anger for an entire year of suffering—and I thought, “Okay, well, maybe people have actually got to a point where they've built great modules that I can just pick up off the shelf and reuse or customize only a tiny little bit, add maybe a couple of features and that's, it move on; it's good enough for me.” But as it turns out, there is I think, a lot of the time a case where the need for standardization goes against the need for business to move on.So, I think this is where you start to see silos start to being built within the company and people do their own thing and the other ones do their own. And I think it's always a really big challenge for a large company with extremely opinionated individuals to say, “All right, we're going to standardize on this way.” And it definitely was one of the biggest challenge that I had when I joined the company because again, big communities and Terraform place, we're going to need to do something else. So, then it was the case of saying, “Hey, I don't think we need Kubernetes and I definitely don't think we need Terraform for any the things—for any of those reasons, so how about we do something a little different?”Corey: Speaking of doing things a little bit different, you were recently featured in an AWS Open-Source Roundup newsletter that was just where you, I think, came across my desk one of the first times, has specifically around an open-source project that you built: ECS Compose-X.So, I assume it's like, oh, it's like Docker Compose for ECS and also the ‘X' implies that it is extreme, just, like, you know, snack foods at the convenience store. What does it do and where'd it come from?John: Right. So, you said most of it, right? It literally is a question where you take a Docker Compose file and you want to deploy your services that you worked on and all of that together, and you want to deploy it to AWS. So, ECS Compose-X is a CLI tool very much like the Copilot. I think it was released about four months just before Copilots came out—so, sorry, I beat you to the ball there—but with the Docker Compose specification supported.And again, it was really out of I needed to find a neat way to take my services and deploy them in AWS. So, Compose-X is just a CLI tool that is going to parse your Docker Compose file and create CloudFormation templates out of it. Now, the X is not very extreme or anything like that, but it's actually coming from the [finite 00:18:59] extension fields, which is something supported in Docker Compose. And so, you can do things like x-RDS, or x-DynamoDB, which Docker Compose on your laptop will totally ignore, but ECS Compose-X however will take that into account.And what it will do is if you need a database or a DynamoDB table, for example, in your Docker Compose file, you do [x-RDS, my database, some properties, 00:19:22]—exactly the same properties as CloudFormation, actually—and then you say, “I want this service to have access to it in read-only fashion.” And what ECS Compose-X is going to do is just understand what it has to do when—meaning creating IAM policies, opening security groups, all of that stuff, and make all of that available to the containers in one way or another.Corey: It feels like it's a bit of a miss for Copilot not to do this. It feels like they wanted to go off in their own direction with the way that they viewed the world—which I get; I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. There's a reason that I point kubernetestheeasyway.com to the ECS marketing site—but there's so much stuff out there that is shipped or made available in other ways with a Docker Compose file, and the question of okay, how do I take this and run it in Fargate or something because I don't want to run it locally for whatever reason, and the answer is, “That's the neat part. You don't.”And it just becomes such a clear miss. There have been questions about this Since Copilot launched. There's a GitHub issue tracking getting support for this that was last updated in September—we are currently recording this at the end of March—it just doesn't seem to be something that's a priority. I mean, I will say the couple of times that I've used Copilot myself, it was always for greenfield experiments, never for adopting something else that already existed. And that was… it just felt like a bit of a heavy lift to me of oh, you need to know from the beginning that this is the tool you're going to use for the thing. Docker Compose is what the ecosystem has settled on a long time ago and I really am disheartened by the fact that there's no direct ECS support for it today.John: Yeah, and it was definitely a motivation for me because I knew that ECS CLI version 1 was going into the sunset, and there wasn't going to be anything supporting it. And so, I just wanted to have Docker Compose because it's familiar to developers and again, if you want to have adoption and have people use your thing, it has to be easy. And when I looked at Copilot the first time around, I was extremely excited because I thought, “Yes, thank you, Amazon for making my life easy. I don't have to maintain this project anymore and I'm going to be able to just lift and shift, move over, and be happy about it.” But when the specification for Copilot was out and I could go for the documentation, I was equally disheartened because I was like, “Okay, not for me.”And something very similar happened when they announced Proton. I was extremely excited by Proton. I opened a GitHub issue on the roadmap immediately to say, “Hey, are you going to support to have some of those things together or not?” And the fact that the Proton templates—I mean, again, it was, what, two, three years ago now—and I haven't looked at Proton since, so it was a very long time now.Corey: The beta splasher was announced in 2020 and I really haven't seen much from it since.John: Well, and I haven't done anything [unintelligible 00:22:07] with it. And literally, one of the first thing did when the project came out. Because obviously, this is an open-source project that we use in Sainsbury's, right because we deploy everything in [ECS 00:22:17] so why would I reinvent the wheel the third time? It's been done, I might as well leverage it. But every time something on it came out, I was seeing it as the way out of nobody's going to need me anymore—which is great—and that doesn't create a huge potential dependency on the company for me, oh, well, we need this to, you know, keep working.Now, it's open-source, it's on the license you can fork it and do whatever you want with it, so from that point of view, nobody's going to ask me anything in the future, but from the point of view where I need to, as much as possible, use AWS native tools, or AWS-built tools, I differently wanted every time to move over to something different. But every time I tried and tiptoed with those alternative offerings, I just went back and said, “No, this [laugh] either is too new and not mature enough yet, or my tool is just better.” Right? And one of the things I've been doing for the past three years is look at the Docker ECS plugin, all of the issues, and I see all of the feature requests that people are asking for and just do that in my project. And some with Copilots. The only thing that Copilot does that I don't do is tell people how to do CI/CD pipelines.Corey: One thing you said a second ago just sort of, I guess, sent me spiraling for a second because I distinctly remember this particular painful part. You're right, there was an ECS CLI for a long time that has since been deprecated. But we had internal tooling built around that. When there was an issue with a particular task that failed, getting logs out of it was non-trivial, so great. Here's the magic incantation that does it.I still haven't found a great way to do that with the AWS v2 CLI and that feels like it's a gap where yes, I understand, old tools go away and new ones show up, but, “Hey, I [unintelligible 00:24:05] task. Can you tell me what the logs are?” “No. Well, Copilot's the new answer.” “Okay. Can I use this to get logs from something that isn't Copilot?” “Oh, absolutely not.” And the future is inherently terrible as a direct result.John: Yeah. Well, I mean, again, the [unintelligible 00:24:20]—the only thing that ECS Compose-X does is create all the templates for you so you can, you know, then just query it and know where everything has been created. And one of the things it definitely does create is all of the log groups. Because again, least-privileged permissions being something that is very dear to me, I create the log groups and just allow the services to only write in those log groups and that's it.Now, typically this is not a thing that I've thought Compose-X was going to do because that's not its purpose. It's not going to be an operational tool to troubleshoot all the things and this is where I think that other projects are much better suited and I would rather use them as an extension or library of the project as opposed to reinvent them. So, if you're trying to find a tool for yourself to look at logs, I highly recommend something called ‘AWS logs,' which is fantastic. You just say, “Hey, can you list the groups?” “Okay.” “Can you get me the groups and can I tell them on a terminal?”And that's it. Job done. So, as much as I enjoy building new features into the project, for example, I think that there's a clear definition between what the project is for and what it's not. And what it's for is giving people CloudFormation templates they can reuse in any region and deploy their services and not necessarily deal with their operations; that's up to them. At the end of the day, it's really up to the user to know what they want to do with it. I'm not trying to force anybody into doing something specific.Corey: I would agree. I think that there's value to there's more than one way to do it. The problem is, at some point, there's a tipping point where you have this proliferation of different options to the point where you end up in this analysis paralysis model where you're too busy trying to figure out what is the next clear step. And yes, that flexibility is incredibly valuable, especially when you get into, you know, large, sophisticated enterprises—ahem, ahem—but when you're just trying to kick the tires on something new, I feel like there's a certain lack of golden path where in the event of not having an opinion on any of these things, this is what you should do just to keep things moving forward, as opposed to here are two equal options that you can check with radio boxes and it's not at all clear what you which does what or what the longer-term implications are. We've all gotten caught with the one-way doors we didn't realize we were passing through at the time and then had to do significant technical debt repayment efforts to wind up making it right again.I just wish that those questions would be called out, but everything else just, it doesn't matter. If you don't like the name of the service that you're creating, you can change it later. Or if you can't, maybe you should know now, so you don't have—in my case—a DynamoDB table that is named ‘test' running in production forever.John: Yeah. You're absolutely right. And again, I think it goes back to one of the biggest challenges that I had when I joined the company, which was when I said, “I think we should be using CloudFormation, I think we should be using ECS and Terraforming Kubernetes for those reasons.” And one of the reasons was, the people. Meaning we were a very small team, only five cloud engineers at the time.And as I joined the company, they were already was three different teams using four different CI/CD tools. And they all wanted to use Kubernetes, for example, and they were all using different CI/CD—like I said, just now—different CI/CD tools. And so, the real big challenge for me was how do I pitch that simplicity is what's going to allow us to deliver value for the business? Because at the end of the day, like you said many, many times before, the AWS bill is a question of architecture, right? And there's a link and intricacy between the two things.So, the only thing that really mattered for me and the team was to find a way, find the service that was going to allow to do a number of things, A, delivering value quickly, being supported over time. Because one of the things that I think people forget these days—well, one of the things I'm allergic to and one of the things that makes me spiral is what I call CV-driven tech choices where people say, “Hey, I love this great thing I read about and I think that we should use that in production. How great idea.” But really, I don't know anything about it and is then up to somebody else to maintain it long-term.And that goes to the other point, which is, turnover-proof is what I call it. So, making tech choices that are going to be something that people will be able to use for many, many years, there is going to be a company behind the scenes that he's going to be able to support you as well as you go and use the service for the many, many years to go.Corey: I really want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to find you?John: So, people can find me on LinkedIn. I'm also around on Twitter these days, although I probably about have nine followers. Well, probably shouldn't say that [laugh] and that doesn't matter.Corey: It's fine. We'll put a link into it—we'll put a link to that in the [show notes 00:29:02] and maybe we'll come up with number ten. You never know. Thanks again for your time. I really appreciate it.John: Thanks so much, Corey, for having me.Corey: John Mille, Principal Cloud Engineer at Sainsbury's. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment that you go to great pains to type out but then fails to post because the version of the tool you use to submit it has been deprecated without a viable replacement.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

On this episode of the In the Club Podcast by Club Colors, we sit down with our very own Chris Jaeger and Giancarlo Amador, Strategic Development Manager and Campus Development Representative Manager at Club Colors respectively.Giancarlo shares the amazing news of his promotion, as he and Chris discuss how to create scalable business development of new campuses, the transfer of knowledge to up-and-coming reps, and how to strengthen strategic partnerships. Chris shares that knowing the why of a client is one of his pillars so that every single product Club Colors puts out is aligned with that greater purpose. They also look back on the culture-driven response Club Colors had despite the difficulties of COVID and share their observations on ongoing trends within campuses today.And, as always, stick around where we have some fun on the Hot Iron with JMo! HIGHLIGHT QUOTESStrong leaders know when to hug and push - John: "It's pretty nice when their wins become your wins, but I think the key to really strong leadership that I think that you both do very well is that you hug them when they're down, and you kind of push them when they're up. It's when they're in 3rd place you're trying to push them to 1st, when they're in 10th place, that's when you got to hug them or they'll go to 11th."Club Colors doesn't add to your plate, we take everything off of it - John: "The philosophy that you have that you're saying there with your team is make sure that we get the message across to our clients, and our job is not to add to their plate, it's to take everything off of their plate. So they can be the strategist, they can be the project manager, they can go this, goes there, this goes there, but they don't have to worry about sourcing all the product and figuring out where it goes."Connect with our amazing guests in the links below:Chris | GiancarloIf you enjoyed this episode of In the Club with Club Colors, please leave us a review on your favorite podcasting platform!

On this episode of the In the Club Podcast by Club Colors, we feature our DesignLab Managers, Nicole Berthold, and Charlene Guthrie, as well as Crystal Puotinen, DesignLab's E-Commerce Coordinator. Today, our guests share how DesignLab works with brand advisors to come up with innovative branded solutions.They share the differences between a brand shop and a pop shop and how to retain brand integrity all throughout, including curated products. With the trend of products going sustainable, our guests share examples of how to offer products that offer this option. John invites potential partners to take the Logo Challenge (link at the bottom) and for everyone to stick around for today's Hot Iron with JMo!HIGHLIGHT QUOTESPioneering the pop shop as a solution to clients - Nicole: "A pop shop, we also have a more simple solution. It's a pop form. So is there data collection? If it's solely data collection, no payment, and it's just, “Hey, go on, pick your item”, then that's going to be a pop form. There's no payment collected. It's simply just data. So that's a solution that we actually came up with about six months ago, but to that point, that's the cool thing about DesignLab and our technology services too. We're constantly looking into different ways to provide those solutions to clients based on their needs."A brand shop with sustainable options reaches across demographics - John: "It's very consistent with the way that decision-makers at all brands are thinking because generations of staff members now are thinking deeper than a paycheck. At least, they want the option too. If you only make it about a paycheck and you only make it about getting the number, get the number, and there's no greater purpose, then you're probably going to have a lot of turnover and people that really don't steward the brand. So the whole idea of creating a brand-consistent shop like this that is aesthetically pleasing, that has a variety of options for every different type of demographic, it's really a fantastic solution." Connect with our amazing guests below:Nicole | Charlene | CrystalWant to work with DesignLab? Shoot us an email HERE or HERE.Try the Club Colors Logo Challenge! If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a review on your favorite podcasting platform. We really appreciate it!

So much of our anger, sadness, coldness, critical-spirit, and refusal to forgive arises because we've forgotten who we are and we're expecting the world to treat us like we're the groom, but it's not our party, it's not our story! JESUS is the groom! Jesus is the Hero! And John knew this and that's the secret! John is content in life and full of joy because he's accepted the reality that it's not about JOHN – It's ALL about Jesus and for Jesus! and this is the secret to his contentment and peace!

John shares his journey with grief and how celebrity photoshop nude fakes have given him solace. He'll discuss how he's been able to cope with writer's block since his mother's death, and how he's hoping to take his hobby to the next level. Tune in for an intimate look into his healing process, and come out with a newfound perspective on grief.Host Brianne Davis provides helpful advice, poignant stories, and plenty of laughter. Join John on this emotional, heartfelt journey to find healing and hope on Secret Life._____If you or anyone you know is struggling with addiction, depression, trauma, sexual abuse or feeling overwhelmed, we've compiled a list of resources at secretlifepodcast.com.______To share your secret and be a guest on the show email secretlifepodcast@icloud.com_____SECRET LIFE'S TOPICS INCLUDE:addiction recovery, mental health, alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, love addiction, OCD, ADHD, dyslexia, eating disorders, debt & money issues, anorexia, depression, shoplifting,  molestation, sexual assault, trauma, relationships, self-love, friendships, community, secrets, self-care, courage, freedom, and happiness._____Create and Host Your Podcast with the same host we use - RedCircle_____Get your copy of SECRET LIFE OF A HOLLYWOOD SEX & LOVE ADDICT -- Secret Life Novel or on Amazon______HOW CAN I SUPPORT THE SHOW?Tell Your Friends & Share Online!Follow, Rate & Review: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyFollow & Listen iHeart | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | Amazon | PandoraSpread the word via social mediaInstagramTwitterFacebook#SecretLifePodcastDonate - You can also support the show with a one-time or monthly donation via PayPal (make payment to secretlifepodcast@icloud.com) or at our WEBSITE.Connect with Brianne Davis-Gantt (@thebriannedavis)Official WebsiteInstagramFacebookTwitterConnect with Mark Gantt (@markgantt)Main WebsiteDirecting WebsiteInstagramFacebookTwitterTranscript[0:00:00] John: My favorite actress, for example, she'll never, like, do like, nude scenes or anything like that, so I kind of look at the fakes. This is kind of fantasy. [0:00:19] Brianne Davis: Welcome to the Secret Life Podcast.[0:00:22] Brianne Davis: Tell me your secret, I'll tell you mine.[0:00:30] Brianne Davis: Sometimes you have to go through the darkness to reach the light. That's what I did. After twelve years of recovery in sex and love addiction, I finally found my soulmate myself. Please join me in my novel, secret Life of a Hollywood sex and love Addict. A four time bestseller on Amazon. It's a brutal, honest, raw, gnarly ride, but hilarious at the same time. Check it out now on Amazon.[0:01:01] Brianne Davis: Welcome to Secret Live Podcast. I'm Brianne. Davis-Gantt. Today, I'm pulling back the curtains of all kinds of human secrets. We'll hear about what people are hiding from themselves or others. You know, those deep, dark secrets you probably want to take to your grave. Or those lighter, funnier secrets that are just plain embarrassing. Really the how, what, one way, or live at all. Today. My guest is John. Now, John, I have a question for you. What is your secret?[0:01:27] John: So my secret is I collect celebrity photoshop, nude, fakes.[0:01:32] Brianne Davis: How long have you been doing that?[0:01:34] John: Since 2000.[0:01:36] Brianne Davis: 2000, okay, so dive in. What made you start doing that? Did you create them yourself? Like, take me back when that all started. Was something going on?[0:01:48] John: No, I didn't create any at that time. Basically what had happened is I was watching a new TV show that had just come out, I think, andromeda andromeda yeah, it's like a side fiction TV show.[0:02:03] John: Yeah.[0:02:04] John: I liked one of the actresses and so I pretty much went to Google, looked for her nude, and stumbled across the fake. And that was the first fake I ever found of her.[0:02:16] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:02:17] Brianne Davis: Did you buy it or do you.[0:02:18] Brianne Davis: Just take it from is it free? How does that work?[0:02:22] John: Free? I just found it on Google image search.[0:02:26] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:02:27] John: And pretty much like, just copied the image to my computer at the time was really old.[0:02:36] Brianne Davis: What do you think it is about the fake? Because there are a lot of celebrity nudes that are real, but you only like the fake ones.[0:02:44] John: No, it's more back then, she had never done that. Okay, so it's more of a fantasy thing.[0:02:57] Brianne Davis: Yes. So you've been doing that for almost 23 years.[0:03:02] John: Yeah, it's slowed down quite a bit. I don't collect as much anymore. Basically, if I see one I like, I just download it and stick it with the rest of them.[0:03:15] Brianne Davis: So how many do you think you have that's embarrassing? Well, that's why we are here. This is a show where we get to say all those embarrassing things. I have been there. I have said very many embarrassing things.[0:03:29] John: So I have about last count, over 15,000.[0:03:34] Brianne Davis: 15,000?[0:03:36] John: Yeah. Over.[0:03:37] John: Wow.[0:03:38] Brianne Davis: Over. Oh, my God. What do you do with them? They just sit there. Do you go through them? Do you, like, celebrate that? Like, what do you do with them?[0:03:47] John: Sometimes I just look at them and admire the work that went into them. Because some of them you can really tell because some people who make them just do a crappy don't put an effort into it.[0:04:04] John: Yeah.[0:04:05] Brianne Davis: So you almost see them as artwork.[0:04:07] John: Yeah.[0:04:08] Brianne Davis: And then do you find someone you like or you don't know, and then you go watch all their movies or their TV shows?[0:04:14] John: Sometimes. And there are some that I found and liked and then later just hated them. Because see, I think I have an OCD thing, and I see one minor detail that's off, and it bugs me.[0:04:36] Brianne Davis: That's all you focus on.[0:04:37] John: Yeah.[0:04:38] Brianne Davis: Got it. So if it's a bad art, if it's bad, do you keep that or do you throw that away or you still keep it?[0:04:46] John: I keep it. I guess there's some that are just not great that I keep. I think keeping them is nostalgia's sake.[0:04:54] John: Got it.[0:04:55] Brianne Davis: So it's almost like somebody collecting baseball cards or something. It sounds like there's this compulsion to it a bit.[0:05:04] John: Yeah. In the last couple of years, I've kind of started semi getting out of it.[0:05:11] Brianne Davis: Okay. What does that mean?[0:05:15] John: I used to look for new ones pretty much every day. Nowadays I look maybe every couple of weeks.[0:05:26] Brianne Davis: Oh. So what's been going on where you've decreased the searching for them in your life?[0:05:33] John: Maybe as I get older, I just don't enjoy them as much.[0:05:36] Brianne Davis: Does anybody in your life know about them?[0:05:40] John: Three people.[0:05:41] Brianne Davis: Three people? Who are those three people?[0:05:43] John: Two were by choice, and one was not by choice.[0:05:46] Brianne Davis: Oh, so you got caught?[0:05:48] John: Yeah. So basically the one who caught me was one of my female cousins.[0:05:55] Brianne Davis: Oh, no. So you went on your computer and and saw them?[0:05:58] John: I had collected some early this was back in high school, and I had collected some mended day at school. And I brought them home, loaded them on the computer, and forgot to close the images out. She came up to visit, came up to my room and walked in, and I turned around to something else, and all I heard was, what's this?[0:06:24] Brianne Davis: Oh, my God. Did your stomach drop?[0:06:27] John: That's one way of putting it in.[0:06:30] Brianne Davis: Okay. What happened?[0:06:31] John: We're like sheer panic.[0:06:33] John: Yeah.[0:06:34] John: And it's like, adjoked by folks.[0:06:37] Brianne Davis: How old were you at the time?[0:06:39] John: Between 16 and 18. And she never did she pretty much.[0:06:46] Brianne Davis: Just kept that secret?[0:06:48] John: Yeah. She pretty much said, this is normal. Looking at this kind of stuff is normal, and sat down and just looked through them. And she, like, recognized some of the celebrities. The other two were by choice. This is what I've been doing.[0:07:08] Brianne Davis: Who were they?[0:07:09] John: Just good friends.[0:07:10] Brianne Davis: Okay. And what they say?[0:07:12] John: Pretty much same thing. Like that kind of stuff is normal.[0:07:15] John: Yeah.[0:07:15] Brianne Davis: Looking at porno images and all that is completely normal. But the difference between yours is that they're fake and you know they're fake. So what about it? Do you like that aspect of it that I'm curious about, that you know they're not real, but you still like them.[0:07:31] John: Well, I guess the closest fantasy, because some celebrities will never do, like, nude scenes or pose nude for magazines. Like, my favorite actress, for example. One of my favorite actresses is named Danielle Panabaker. She'll never do, like, nude scenes or anything like that, so I kind of look at the fakes. This is kind of fantasy.[0:08:02] Brianne Davis: Yeah, it's complete fantasy. And do you think with looking at those, that it keeps you distant from having a relationship in real life or no.[0:08:14] John: You mean like a girlfriend or yeah, not really. I kind of don't have much interest in a girlfriend at this point.[0:08:25] Brianne Davis: Oh, really? Have you ever had a girlfriend?[0:08:27] John: No, I've just never had the interest.[0:08:31] Brianne Davis: Okay, here's my question for you. When did you start looking at pornographic images? At what age do you think?[0:08:39] John: REM high school days.[0:08:41] Brianne Davis: High school?[0:08:44] John: I think the first one was Playboy.[0:08:46] Brianne Davis: So when we look at those images a lot and I've done a lot of work around this, it desensitizes our own sexuality, because then the fantasy is more it becomes everything instead of the reality. The reality of a person being with another person or a woman doesn't match the fantasy. Do you think that's true?[0:09:10] John: I guess it depends. Now, with fakes, usually people get aroused by this stuff. I don't.[0:09:21] Brianne Davis: You don't? No, not at all.[0:09:24] John: Well, I mean, back when I first started collecting, maybe. No.[0:09:29] Brianne Davis: So interesting. Not at all. So when you look at it and it's just like, oh, that's a great fake, they did a good job with taking her face and putting it on. That's what you look at mostly than the nude.[0:09:43] John: Yeah, pretty much. Like, a few years ago, I used to use fakes as wallpapers on, like, my tablet.[0:09:50] Brianne Davis: Yeah.[0:09:51] John: But now I don't do that much anymore.[0:09:54] Brianne Davis: Okay.[0:09:55] John: Mostly because I go out in public a lot now.[0:09:58] Brianne Davis: So you're getting out of the house?[0:10:00] John: Yeah.[0:10:01] Brianne Davis: That's probably why you've been doing less, do you believe? Because you said it's been, like, less used to do it every day and now you're doing it weekly.[0:10:10] John: Yeah, it's actually possible. I have a few friends I hang out with, and so that kind of helps.[0:10:18] Brianne Davis: It does help. It does help. I believe when we are stuck with these images, especially when they are fantasy, when we deny ourselves that authentic connection with other human beings, we miss out. And the moment you open yourself up to that and you're getting out of the computer screen with these images and with actual friends, that's what is a real connection.[0:10:41] John: And I think I started heavily collecting quite a few years ago because of grief?[0:10:48] John: Yeah.[0:10:49] Brianne Davis: What were you going through?[0:10:50] John: My mom died from cancer about 1011 years ago, and that's about when I started heavily collecting.[0:10:59] John: Yeah.[0:10:59] Brianne Davis: That's where you found comfort, right?[0:11:01] John: Yeah.[0:11:02] Brianne Davis: Not feeling alone. A huge loss.[0:11:05] John: Yeah. And I read this article online about how one guy got into fakes and it completely destroyed his life.[0:11:15] John: Yeah.[0:11:16] Brianne Davis: What did he say in the article? Why it destroyed his life.[0:11:19] John: He decided to start looking at fakes at his place of employment. I can safely say I've never done.[0:11:31] Brianne Davis: You haven't done that?[0:11:32] John: No. But the article also did the flip side where it actually saved somebody's life because I guess, like me, they lost their mother.[0:11:42] John: Yeah.[0:11:43] John: And they were thinking about ending stuff, so I guess that saved them.[0:11:49] Brianne Davis: Well, it did, because we reach for those outside things that we feel connected to, and it doesn't feel safe with another human being, especially if you lost somebody so important to you so they can give you that outlet of connection.[0:12:02] John: Yeah, I can agree with that.[0:12:04] Brianne Davis: Have you been doing work on the loss and the trauma of it with your mom?[0:12:09] John: Yeah, I had a therapist for a while. I think I'm kind of there now. Not easy. Never really all that easy.[0:12:19] Brianne Davis: No, grief is never easy. We run from grief. But are you finally feeling like you've felt it and moving through it?[0:12:27] John: Yeah, I think so. I've also got friends I talked to about it, too.[0:12:32] Brianne Davis: Oh, good.[0:12:34] John: One of my friends went through the same thing, actually.[0:12:38] Brianne Davis: Well, that always helps when I'm going through a hard time to find a group of people that have been through similar situations and they have them online. All over online as well. Grief and loss groups.[0:12:50] John: Yeah. I found this app, actually, called Seven Cups. Kind of like a sort of therapy app where you can go and talk to people.[0:12:59] John: Yeah.[0:13:00] John: And it's kind of helped me a bit.[0:13:02] Brianne Davis: Good.[0:13:03] John: Now, I have to admit, back when this all happened, I did used to make them.[0:13:09] Brianne Davis: You did used to make them for a short period. And what did that feel like when you were actually making the fake nude photos of celebrities?[0:13:18] John: That's hard to describe. Proud that I made one that looked decent, actually, because I still have one I made that is still my favorite.[0:13:29] Brianne Davis: What is it? Who is it?[0:13:31] John: Her name is Cody Depblo from the TV show NCIS. And it was like a lingerie style fake, not even nude. And that's still my favorite one I've made.[0:13:44] Brianne Davis: I know her. She's very nice. But here's the thing. I did want to ask you this, and I know probably our listeners are wondering, do you ever think of the actual person you're doing the nude of? Like, when you're cutting out their face or you're seeing their face and you know that's not them? Do you ever actually think of that.[0:14:06] John: Person in what way?[0:14:08] Brianne Davis: I don't know. If they choose not to be nude and then someone puts their face on a new body, have you ever thought about how that could make them feel?[0:14:16] John: Yeah, that's kind of why I stopped.[0:14:19] Brianne Davis: Oh, tell me about it. So you had that thought. What was the feelings that came up?[0:14:23] John: Pretty much just yeah, maybe they don't want this. Yeah, let's not do this.[0:14:28] John: Yeah.[0:14:29] Brianne Davis: That they're a human being as well.[0:14:31] John: Yeah, pretty much that.[0:14:32] John: Yeah.[0:14:33] Brianne Davis: And do you think that was one of the reasons about hanging out with friends more, getting out into the world and then that realization that they're humans as well?[0:14:41] John: Yeah, quite a bit, actually. And I haven't made one in seven, nine years.[0:14:49] Brianne Davis: Well, it seems like you're kind of an artist, too. Have you ever thought of trying to do something even different with your art because you enjoy art?[0:14:57] John: It seems like I kind of have. I've started not officially, not like paid stuff, just editing images into wallpapers and just like posting it to a deviant arc page.[0:15:14] Brianne Davis: I think you'd be great at it. There's something in it that inspires you, and I think it takes dedication and you have that. I don't know.[0:15:23] John: Yeah, I used to have something that was like that, but I used to write quite a bit.[0:15:28] Brianne Davis: Maybe it's time to pick it back up.[0:15:30] John: The issue is, ever since my mother died, I've had writer's block.[0:15:35] Brianne Davis: I know. And believe me, I know, writer's block and all that and trauma and all that, but it's like maybe you reaching out to me and wanting to come on and share the secret isn't a way for you to step through it now.[0:15:49] John: Yeah, that could be a good way of looking at it. And I've started dabbling with writing a bit more.[0:15:56] John: Good.[0:16:00] Brianne Davis: Well, I'm so grateful you came on. I'm so grateful to have this conversation. I never expected to have this conversation. It's been beautiful and I understanding so much. And thank you for reaching out to me.[0:16:14] John: Yeah, no problem.[0:16:15] Brianne Davis: And if you want to be on the show, please email me at secretlifepodcast@icloud.com. Until next time.[0:16:27] Brianne Davis: Thanks again for listening to the show. Please subscribe rate share or send me a note at secretlifepodcast.com. And if you like to check out my book, head over to secretlifenovel.com or Amazon to pick up a copy for yourself or someone you love. Thanks again.[0:16:44] Brianne Davis: See you soon.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

We're Live. Under the decision-making process, there's something that you'll always have to bare in mind, you can lose. It doesn't matter if all the chances and probabilities show that you will be successful in your entrepreneurship, there's always the possibility of losing, and you have to prepare for that moment.   John and Josh have a great discussion about this topic and the many preparations that you have to do to thrive if this moment ever passes.   Thought of the week   John - “It is Win or Lose, just take the chance”

All right. Today's guest is a Puerto Rico native who loves to explore, surf and make coffee. Owner of La Cafetera, Mara Rosado. Mara, very, very nice to meet you. John - Yeah. So my family came down here for the first time in October. My wife and I were celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary. We brought our youngest daughter Kimberly down, and we fell in love with Puerto Rico. And one of the reasons we fell in love with PR is La Cafetera. We probably came here about five times in the two weeks that we were here. And I've already been here every day to get my coffee on this visit. Very nice to meet you. So talk to us a little bit about why did you start a food cart? Mara - Okay. So I always wanted to have my own business because it's like what I wanted to do since I was very young. And then so food trucks here are easier because... John - It's like you're paying less rent and it's easier to maintain. You don't have a big restaurant to take care of. Mara - And so it's like an easier way to start, you know, and then so, I mean, I was a barista for like seven years and I always wanted to have my own like business with breakfast and coffee, but I loved my work back then and I was so comfortable but... --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/morningfuelpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/morningfuelpodcast/support

John Ridd is the Co-Founder and CEO of Greenpixie, which is building solutions to reveal and reduce cloud emissions. Chad and Will talk to John about giving a clearer view of AWS emissions down to the service level, why cloud emissions are a much bigger sustainability issue than most people realize, and how this will be the next big issue of the climate crisis. Greenpixie (https://greenpixie.com/) Follow Greenpixie on Twitter (https://twitter.com/greenpixiehq), Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/greenpixiehq/), or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/greenpixie/). Follow John on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-c-ridd/). Follow thoughtbot on Twitter (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: CHAD: This is the Giant Robots Smashing Into Other Giant Robots Podcast, where we explore the design, development, and business of great products. I'm your host, Chad Pytel. WILL: And I'm your other host, Will Larry. And with us today is John Ridd, the Co-Founder, and CEO of Greenpixie, which is building solutions to reveal and reduce the emissions of the cloud. CHAD: John, thank you so much for joining us. I have to admit that as a developer, this is something that I've been thinking a lot about recently. We practice test-driven development. We run continuous integration, even the things that we have running in the cloud in terms of the websites that we run and that kind of thing. I'm also just really becoming aware of when I make a new branch in everything that I run, and I'm making a code change and pushing that up to GitHub; it then kicks off a build every single time any team member is doing that. And I can just see the impact that even just a single software product can have potentially on our environment. And I've started to become more and more guilty about that. So I'm excited to talk to you about how [laughs] we might be able to fix that problem. JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the big reasons that we've really seen the opportunity in the cloud emissions space is this disconnect really between how developers are incentivized to think, and rightfully so. They need to build and innovate at all costs; that's what drives the innovation in any tech company or any company. But the sustainability way of thinking and thinking, what am I building? What servers am I using and turning on? Just hasn't been in the conversation with developers. And they're the ones who are making these decisions using cloud providers to build out the products that the company needs. So it's great to hear that you're now aware of this impending issue from development. CHAD: So I'm excited to dig more into the product. But I'm curious, you were doing digital marketing before starting Greenpixie, right? JOHN: Yeah, I ran my own marketing consultancy, worked with a number of companies, big and small. And where I found my knack was sort of demand generation; really, starting off projects from nothing is what I've always done. It's clear now that...so Greenpixie was a bootstrap startup. Really using that ability to at least come up with an idea and take it from zero to one, bring demand to an issue, that's how Greenpixie started. And it actually started with the head of engineering, Chris, who I met at my co-working space, and really we traded ideas through a hackathon on the weekend. And I had this idea when it came to website emissions and just knew that there was a software and a product play there. And what we do is connect into Google Analytics, put it through some carbon algorithms, and give them the ability to see how much digital carbon the website is producing. And from my marketing background, we've developed our own marketing, internal marketing software, which is a combination of we've built our own email servers with a high inbox. And we do semantic web scraping to find relevant prospects in the sustainability space. So we built the MVP and put this idea for Greenpixie out to the world, and the overwhelming response that we got was people being shocked at the idea of digital carbon and how their digital operations do have a sustainability impact. It really gave us the confidence to think there's demand for this idea of emissions. And since then, we've now moved into carbon emissions down the carbon rabbit hole. But my marketing experience explains how it started in the first place. CHAD: So how does...sometimes when faced with, I think, all kinds of climate issues, people can feel overwhelmed or helpless or feeling like what do I do as an individual to have an impact? So what does Greenpixie and Cloud NetZero enable an individual, team, or company, or developer to actually see and do? JOHN: Cloud NetZero connects into the leading cloud providers. So at this stage, we can give a clearer view of your AWS emissions down to the service level. And this is a key first step. So we take a you can't affect what you can't measure philosophy. And that was a big, big step for us. And by cutting into the cost and usage reports and putting it through our carbon algorithms, we can then get visibility to engineers. So everything you're building up in the cloud, we then give a full transparent view of the associated emissions that are being created from that by using our algorithms and methodology to convert the electricity used from the computation and storage and take into account the geographic location of the data centers of which you're using. As you can imagine, there are different carbon intensities in different countries during different times of the day. So we actually hook up into an API that gives us this carbon intensity data down to the hour. So we give a really comprehensive view of your carbon emissions footprint, which is what we consider the gold standard in sustainability. Because what makes the digital vertical so unique within sustainability is we've got data coming out of our ears. [chuckles] The data is there to connect into the software, so we can give this crystal clear picture. Whereas in other branches of sustainability, if you're into supply chains, et cetera, you've got real-world problems that you have to put real-time into. So that's the first step that we do is giving you this clear picture of your emissions. And from that, we then proceed to suggest reduction strategies to reduce those emissions. WILL: John, I'll be honest. Before getting on the podcast with you, I never thought about my cloud emissions as a developer. Now I'm seeing, wow, there is a lot there with that. On your Twitter, I saw this stat: imagine driving 1.3 billion miles all the way to Saturn. The carbon you would release would be about the same as the amount from all of these streams of Netflix's top 10 shows in the month that were released, 6 billion hours of viewing. I'm just mind-blown just thinking about that. For someone who is just now thinking about my cloud emissions, what would you tell me as a developer or any CEO that's listening to the podcast? JOHN: So yeah, you're right. This is a much bigger sustainability issue than most people realize. Currently, it's estimated around 2% of global emissions are from the cloud and data centers use, which puts it near the level of the aviation industry. And because the cloud is so esoteric and it's called the cloud, you think it's light and fluffy, and you're like, okay, it's over there; it's fine. But there's a hard infrastructure that makes up the digital world that we enjoy, and that's thousands of racks of servers. That's so much gallons, like, millions of gallons of water used to cool these data centers. And because of this, there are countries such as Ireland and Singapore that have now begun to ban further construction of data centers. Because in Ireland, over 10% of the grid is taken up by these, well, I believe there was an article in The Telegraph that referred to these data centers as vampires, [laughs] vampires on the grid sucking all this energy up. And the reason that this exists is it comes down to a company level or to a developer level. You're renting these data centers in order to grow your operations. And this aggregate demand goes straight into why these data centers exist and how much electricity they're using. But what you can do for a certain output...because we're a tech company and we love tech. And that makes us different to maybe some sustainability, really hardline sustainability environmental point of view because we actually think you can achieve the same output for 40% less energy use. So there's waste that is pretty rife across the cloud space, and that also comes with the amount of money spent on the cloud. There can be servers that have been left turned on that are no longer used. There can be non-essential computation that could be moved to low carbon intensity hours of the day. And there's so much that can be done and still basically enjoy and build the tech that we all aspire to build. CHAD: I'm going to resist taking a tangent into What We Do in the Shadows and the energy vampire, or we can call them Colin, I guess, instead of vampires. JOHN: Yeah, yeah. [laughter] CHAD: So I used the calculator that you have on the website on our website, thoughtbot.com. I was pleased to see that it produces less carbon than 95% of websites. What goes into that calculation, though? JOHN: So what we do on the estimator, on the webpage, the calculator, so we take into account whether your server being used is green or standard based on requesting that homepage. And then, really, there's a lot of overlap with PageSpeed optimization, rightfully, so the heavier the web pages, the more images. And if it's been coded lazily and it's heavy, which it hasn't been in your case, which I'm sure you're really happy about, that basically does have an effect on the electricity used in order to serve the website. And we also provide a website carbon report, which goes a step further and takes into account your Google Analytics, which goes for all your pageviews and takes into account some other factors too. CHAD: When you're looking at the carbon footprint of a website, am I understanding that you're also taking into account the carbon footprint of the people viewing what it takes to view the website on the client too? JOHN: It's very interesting, and we are going into the client side of emissions. That is definitely something that we're looking into and continue to do so. But now we focus more on the cloud. We stuck with websites as our main priority, that would mean the next step was going into client side, and it can, and that logic does go up. And it shows the ability of measuring sustainability impact when it comes to digital because, of course, you can get device information from Google Analytics, and that can then be used to give an accurate prediction. But that is something that we would definitely consider doing in the future. But you see the potential. It can go in all these different directions. CHAD: A little bit of a meta question, then, so the calculator is running on people's websites. What is the carbon footprint of running the calculator on the site? [laughs] JOHN: Well, that's the thing; we do have transparency of our own operations. So we're a seed-stage startup, and our operations might get a lot bigger. But for now, and given the sustainable approach, we take with how we run our cloud and run these tools, around two tons of CO2 we produce in a month from operations. But looking into other tech companies, you can imagine how AWS can get when it comes to the bigger companies and everything in between. It can really be hundreds or tens of tons. That has been currently unaccounted for and not addressed, which put into perspective, it's acting on your carbon emissions as an individual. And let's say you're a developer who has the power to do this. You can have the effect of like ten times going vegan or not using air travel. So it's just really we really love the idea of combating carbon emissions, and developers, particularly combating carbon emissions is, using your unique skills in order to fight the climate crisis in a way that a non-technical person couldn't. CHAD: So what are some of the things that you're doing as a company to solve that for yourself? Are there particular cloud hosting providers that are actually better than others? JOHN: Yes, it does vary. So there are the big cloud providers, and we are on AWS due to the startup credit scheme, which, as you can imagine, that's very beneficial when you're starting from a bootstrapped model. And within AWS, you can actually...so choosing the geographic location of where you're spinning up the servers is one way you can reduce that. So our servers are in Ireland. So we're part of that issue actually, now that I think about it, because they have a relatively low carbon intensity. And that's one way that we ensure the carbon we're using is minimized. But there's a whole spectrum. So if you wanted to go at all costs and convenience and costs are out the window, there are niche carbon fighters, which actually are off-grid renewable power data centers. If you have the means, that is the optimum you can go in terms of the carbon intensity. But in terms of how we build, so just the typical making sure that we're turning off products, features, and servers that we don't use and being mindful of that, putting non-essential compute to low-carbon intensity periods in the day and just minimizing costs and using computation for a certain output is how we take that philosophy. MID-ROLL AD: Are your engineers spending too much time on DevOps and maintenance issues when you need them on new features? We know maintaining your own servers can be costly and that it's easy for spending creep to sneak in when your team isn't looking. By delegating server management, maintenance, and security to thoughtbot and our network of service partners, you can get 24x7 support from our team of experts, all for less than the cost of one in-house engineer. Save time and money with our DevOps and Maintenance service. Find out more at: tbot.io/devops. WILL: On your website, I see that 127 billion is wasted in idle cloud spend, so obviously, one of your goals is to reduce that amount. What other goals is your company looking forward to solving? JOHN: I would say our main goal is to reduce millions of tons of needless cloud emissions using scalable software. That is our guiding light. But within that, it correlates largely with cost savings for companies. So we could actually save companies millions of pounds as well or millions of dollars. So I'm from the UK; [laughter] I went for pounds. Yeah, that's the big push; that's our guiding light. And we really want to be the torchbearers for digital sustainability as an idea. So having the awareness, we take responsibility for driving awareness for the issue also. As a team, we have a great combination of technical minds but also creative and marketing, getting the message out there and demystifying carbon emissions. So it's a technical issue because there's a technical issue when you dig into it. But we want to put it in a way that a non-technical decision maker in the C-suite would understand the issue in terms of the effects that you can have as a company in a sustainability drive. CHAD: So you mentioned you got started from that original hackathon idea. And how did things progress for you from there? You now have a team of people working. Did you end up taking some investment in order to continue on? JOHN: We did. We actually started it...so we started it as a passion project from that hackathon, saw the potential. I saw a small business opportunity through the website measuring. And we saw there was demand out there, so we started there. Then we saw it as a side project and continued to see potential and made the call to basically...the initial team was three of us. We went full-time and said let's see what we can do with this. Then I came from a marketing consultancy...I self-funded it to the means that I could for the first six months. It's an interesting experience when you get possessed by an idea, and it's just I need to see this through. I see the potential. It's for a great cause. I think there's a big business opportunity here. And then, really, it came to that point, and we did start going down the investment route. We were part of an incubator associated with the University of Cambridge called Carbon13. It's a really interesting program where they put together experts in climate science, the developers. And you come together to try and come up with these big ideas to basically reduce millions of tons of emissions as a startup. And there was plenty. There was, for example, there was offsetting companies, there was carbon credit startups, everything you can imagine. And it was there that we got put on the investment journey because at the end of the program, you get what was an £80,000 investment to then move on and then go down the VC route. Turns out we didn't get the investment despite us being one of the favorites. It didn't work out for various reasons. And then we were in a situation where I was like, okay, we need to get this investment in order to keep going and scaling the team. And we ended up being VC-backed for our pre-seed from a company in London called Ascension. So we did a £250,000 pre-seed round to get things going. And that's why we have a team who is now working on this full-time. And it's been a bit of a journey, but the trials and tribulations of startups is just the game. And now we're looking to get our seed round. We're hoping to be closing by the end of the year. CHAD: Congratulations on the progress so far. Why do you think Ascension was interested in investing in you? JOHN: So, really, at pre-seed stage, I've talked to VCs and said market, founder, co-founders, anything else is just too early to really know with any certainty. So I think they saw that we were committed, enthusiastic about the idea. Will, the other co-founder, and CTO, is a full-stack developer. It's his second startup. And with my demand generation background, we thought we were a good fit. But really, I think a lot of time and thinking, and commitment has gone into (blood, sweat, and tears) has gone into thinking how we can create a product or software company that addresses carbon emissions. And I think investors have a good radar of when people are really committed, and that's what we were. WILL: You've recently done a soft launch of Cloud NetZero. Can you give me more information around that? JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. We did our soft launch, so this is after the pre-seed investment. We got the 250,000. And we built the product that we laid out in that pitch, which was a software that integrates to AWS and gives you this granular breakdown of your emissions by service. And that was what we presented on our soft launch. We did an in-person event, which we just got a small room and managed to...so around 50 people turned up, which we're pretty proud of. And people do seem to be attracted to this idea. We use my marketing background [laughs] to kind of bolster those numbers. But it was a really great experience. So it was actually on the side of our co-working space where we did a hackathon originally. And it was a bit of an experience, quite a heartwarming experience that everyone has come together. I'm just like, oh, it was in that room that it started as an idea, and now 50 people coming from VC backgrounds, from sustainability, from tech are all coming together. And considering we started in COVID times, to have everyone in the room was just great. So it was great. Yeah, thanks for highlighting it. I really have good memories of that soft launch. CHAD: So people can get a demo and sign up now. JOHN: Yeah, absolutely. So the product is up and running. It went from idea to reality which we're very, very proud of the product team for hitting it on time as well. So we did a 100-day push, and on the 100th day, it was ready for us. And we actually got a big update Monday next week, which is going to be the V 1.1. I call it V2, and then my CTO says, "No, it's V 1.1." [laughter] CHAD: Oh, you need to make your CTO understand that for marketing purposes, you need to make your version numbers bigger. JOHN: Yeah, yeah, he's just like, "If you think that's V2, you don't know what you're saying." [laughter] You can contact us, and we can basically show you the onboarding to get you closer to your cloud provider. And you can have a crystal clear picture of your carbon emissions. And the companies we're talking to now so software companies, so pretty well-known brands. We're now in conversation with as well as just your heavy-duty tech companies. And they're really our ideal client we're looking to now because they have a large amount of carbon emissions, and they want to be really measuring them for their sustainability initiatives. They are actually going to be required to...from the beginning of next year, there's regulation creeping in that's going to make companies measure their Scope 3 emissions, and we have the product to do that. And once we go over that first stage of measurement, then the next step is giving you recommendations to reduce it ultimately, and that will be both in cloud emissions and costs. So we actually are a cost-saving software ultimately because we can highlight wasted cloud spend, and there's a lot of it in these tech companies. CHAD: So you've launched. It sounds like you're focused on getting customers and making sales. How does the pricing work for the product? JOHN: At the moment, we are charging 10K a year to use the software. This is for...so it would be your mid-sized tech company is really who that's aimed for. Anything that goes into really heavy-duty cloud emissions analysis would be probably just down the road just because the complication gets considerably...there's a lot more computing that we need to do on our end, which there are costs associated with that. And there's a lot more, as you can imagine, a lot more hand-holding in order to get integrated and that type of thing. So the pricing would be larger for those more developed companies who have huge AWS accounts. CHAD: A lot of companies' pricing is one of the things that they struggle with early on. I assume you'll learn, and your pricing model will change. But is there something that particularly you weren't sure about when it came to the pricing? JOHN: So the pricing it's really what we're seeing from other parallel softwares on the market more towards the cost reduction side of the cloud. They don't focus on emissions. It's...we'll plug the right place for that. And I think given the opportunity cost, especially from the sustainability and measurement perspective, the alternative is companies are spending a lot of money on sustainability consultants to try and figure out these emissions for the reporting means, and our software does the heavy lifting for you, as any good product does. And with the cost savings on top of that, it's about right for now. But as we improve the product and can accommodate these bigger enterprise clients, the price model will evolve and probably get more expensive. But not to overcomplicate; it is the logic at this point. And once we do have the ability to take on these more complex arrangements, the pricing would reflect that. Yeah, so that's the plan. WILL: Well, John, I thank you for coming on the podcast and being a part of it. Is there anything else that you would like our audience to know? JOHN: We're shouting from the rooftops about carbon emissions. This is going to be the next big issue of the climate crisis. So I truly believe that there are estimates that digital emissions will rise past 10% of global emissions by 2030. Our thirst for data isn't going anywhere. And there's a real chance that computing principles such as Moore's Law that have allowed these improvements in hardware to keep up with the demand for data won't necessarily last forever. And from that, we need to really wake up to the fact that the digital world, despite it being, yeah, it seems like it happens by magic, there is real sustainability impact. But the good news is we think that using the scalability of software...because the scalability of software that has seen so much success for companies can be used to have an equally positive impact on the planet and prevent this issue of digital emissions by using the inherent scalability of digital and availability of data. So that's really what I'm preaching at the moment. And we believe the best first step for that would be a product called NetZero because it gives transparency over these emissions. You can see it in front of your eyes, and then decisions can be made in order to reduce them. That's what I chose to be my soapbox moment. [laughter] CHAD: That's great. John, if folks want to find out more, see that demo, get in touch with you; where are all the different places that they can do that? JOHN: greenpixie.com is where you can just contact us, and we'll be straight on the phone with you. Another place to see what we're really up to and get more ideas of digital sustainability the best place is probably our LinkedIn company page. We're quite active on there. If you want to take your first steps into digital sustainability, start there. And if you think your company is ready to act on their carbon emissions or you just want to find out a little bit more, then yeah, just contact us through our website, and we'll have a chat. CHAD: Awesome. Everything that John just mentioned is going to be linked in the show notes, along with a complete transcript for this episode. You can subscribe to the show and find all of that at giantrobots.fm. WILL: If you have any questions or comments, email us at hosts@giantrobots.fm. CHAD: You can find me on Twitter @cpytel. WILL: And you can find me on Twitter @will23larry. This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot and produced and edited by Mandy Moore. CHAD: Thanks for listening, and see you next time. ANNOUNCER: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success. Special Guest: John Ridd.

“The more complex the organization, and the more demanding a role is, the more difficult it is to focus on self-care and stress management and the more likely people are going into unhealthy behaviors as a way to find balance,” explains John M. O'Brien, Ph.D. John is a consulting psychologist who has been helping people enhance their stress management skills since 1996. He now works as an executive wellness coach and uses his background in psychology to help his clients rebalance their lives. Today, John talks about how to activate success by working on authenticity, devoting time to self-care, and reducing stress. John learned first hand the dangers of stress in a business environment when he watched his executive level father struggle with stress management and ultimately die an early death. He decided to pursue psychology to help people manage their stress and rebalance their lives. John provides his clients with authentic coaching which creates a safe environment built on a foundation of trust. This allows for a more honest relationship and the ability for the coach to share difficult feedback with their clients that they may not be open to hearing from anyone else. He focuses on a positive psychology approach, helping clients to reframe their perspectives on the challenges they are facing.  People tend to have less time for self-care as their jobs become more complex and demanding. And as a result, they are more likely to turn to unhealthy behaviors as methods of stress management. However, chronic stress is dangerous for the body and can lead to physical and mental health challenges. In order to activate success it is important to devote time to stress management and create an environment where you can live authentically.  Quotes: “Supporting people sometimes also means providing difficult feedback for them in a way they can hear it.” (7:47-7:53 | John) “The more complex the organization, and the more demanding a role is, the more difficult it is to focus on self care and stress management. And the more likely people are going into unhealthy behaviors as a way to find balance.” (15:22-15:38 | John) “It's really important for leaders to be looking at what organizations can do to create environments that allow people to be more authentic.” (19:13-19:22 | John)  “When someone comes in and tells me that they failed at a position, I always try to help them to reframe that into a more non-judgmental way.” (35:28-35:36 | John) “Authenticity works best when it happens on the foundation of emotional intelligence.” (41:29-41:36 | John)   Links:   Mentioned in this episode: Learn more about Mike Horne on Linkedin Email Mike at mike@mike-horne.com Find more about Leading People and Culture with Authenticity   Learn more about John M. O'Brien, Ph.D. Website: activatesuccess.org     Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

Garin Hess is the Founder and CEO at Consensus and John Cook is the Director of Demand Gen also at Consensus. They discuss the recently published 3rd Annual Sales Engineering Compensation and Workload Report on where presales and sales engineering stand today. In particular, Garin and John highlight that buyers prefer interactions with sales engineers and that they spend less time engaging with vendors. They also go into detail on the role similarities and differences between SEs and sellers in buyer enablement, SE engagement with stakeholders, and SE compensation.   HIGHLIGHTS The 3rd Annual Sales Engineering Compensation and Workload Report Buyers prefer dealing with sales engineers vs their sales counterparts Profile differences between SEs and sellers The attributes of a top SE: Industry fluency, acumen, and selling skills Measure the probability of success based on the buyer's journey QUOTES A greater focus on sellers becoming coaches to buyers- John: "It's not just the roles of the SE getting stretched and more in demand, it's that the role of the seller is actually changing from this hunter, as we often think of them, to a coach."   "Because the buyer journey, the real pain, the friction in B2B sales, and especially anytime you're buying software for a team, the friction is actually on the buyer side and in the buyer's org."  "And that friction is going to be very painful for them, and the seller is the one who has been through this process, knows where that friction is going to come up because they've been through this process." A deep understanding of the buyer journey makes sales more predictable Garin: "What do the buyers have to do, what actions do they have to take to actually get the deal done? And the more you can measure that and the more predictable your sales are going to be." Find out more about John and Garin in the links below: LinkedIn (Garin) https://www.linkedin.com/in/garin-hess-0017a0/ LinkedIn (John): https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-cook-9049a630/ Website: https://goconsensus.com/ More on Andy: Connect on LinkedIn Get Andy's new book "Sell Without Selling Out" on Amazon Learn more at AndyPaul.com Sponsored by: Revenue.io | Unlock exponential growth with an AI-powered RevOps platform | Revenue.io Scratchpad | The fastest way to update Salesforce, take sales notes, and stay on top of to-dos | Scratchpad.com Blueboard | World's leading experiential rewards & recognition platform | Blueboard.com Explore the Revenue.io Podcast Universe: Sales Enablement Podcast RevOps Podcast Selling with Purpose Podcast

This week on the blog, a podcast interview with Dawn Brodey and Brian Forrest, talking about the various film versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula.”Dawn gave me 4.5 films to revisit: The 1931 version of Frankenstein, Frankenweenie (the feature and the short), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Young Frankenstein.Meanwhile, Brian assigned me the original Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Dracula in Istanbul and Bram Stoker's Dracula. LINKSDawn's podcast (HILF): http://dawnbrodey.com/ - showsBrian's Blog and Vlog, Toothpickings: https://toothpickings.medium.com/ A Free Film Book for You: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/cq23xyyt12Another Free Film Book: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/x3jn3emga6Frankenstein (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/BN8K-4osNb0Frankenweenie Trailer: https://youtu.be/29vIJQohUWEMary Shelley's Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/GFaY7r73BIsYoung Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/mOPTriLG5cUNosferatu (Complete Film): https://youtu.be/dCT1YUtNOA8Dracula (1931) Trailer: https://youtu.be/VoaMw91MC9kAbbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (Trailer): https://youtu.be/j6l8auIACycHorror of Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/ZTbY0BgIRMkBram Stoker's Dracula (Trailer): https://youtu.be/fgFPIh5mvNcDracula In Istanbul: https://youtu.be/G7tAWcm3EX0Fast, Cheap Film Website: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/Eli Marks Website: https://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Albert's Bridge Books Website: https://www.albertsbridgebooks.com/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BehindthePageTheEliMarksPodcastDawn and Brian TRANSCRIPT John: [00:00:00] Before we dive into the assignment you gave me—which was to watch stuff I hadn't seen and also rewatch stuff I had seen to get a better idea of who's done a good job of adapting these books—let's just jump in and talk a little bit about your area of expertise and why you have it. So, I'm going to start with you, Brian. I was very surprised after working with you a while to find out that you had a whole vampire subset in your life. Brian: A problem, you can call it a problem. It's fine. John: Okay. What is the problem and where did it come from? Brian: I was just vaguely interested in vampires for a while. When I was in my screenwriting days, someone had encouraged me to do a feature length comedy about vampires, and that led me to do a lot of reading. And then I just kind of put it aside for a while. And then I was, I had just finished a documentary for Committee Films and they said, do you have any other pitches? And I thought, and I said, you know, there's still people who believe in vampires even today, that could be really interesting. And I put together a pitch package. Then, the guy in charge of development said, [00:01:00]this is what we need to be doing. And then it stalled out. Nothing ever happened with it. And I said, what the hell. I could do this on my own. I could fly around and interview these people. And I did, I spent a couple years interviewing academics and some writers. And along the way, I started finding all these very intriguing moments in the history of either vampire lore or fiction or even just people who consider themselves vampires today. And all these things would connect to each other. It was a lattice work of vampires going back hundreds of years. It didn't fit the documentary, unfortunately, but I found it way too interesting. And I said, I need some kind of outlet for this. And so I started writing about it on Tooth Pickings. And that eventually put me in touch with people who were more scholarly, and it opened up a lot more conversations. And now I can't get out. I'm trapped. John: Well, the first sign is recognizing there's a problem. [00:02:00] Okay. Now, Dawn, you had a different entryway into Frankenstein. Dawn: Yeah, well, I was a theater major and a history minor at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers. And, this was in the late nineties, early two thousands, when there were still a lot of jobs for people who had degrees and things like this. Or at least there was a theory that this was a reasonable thing to get educated in. And then I graduated in 2001, which was months after 9/11, when all those jobs went away. And so, I had this education so specific and what was I gonna do? And gratefully the Twin Cities is a great place for finding that kind of stuff. And one of my very first jobs out of college was at the Bakkan museum. So, the Bakkan museum was founded by Earl Bakkan, who is the inventor of the battery-operated pacemaker. And he has always, since childhood, been obsessed with the Frankenstein movie that came out in 1931. And he attributes [00:03:00]his great scientific invention and many others to a science fiction in general. And to the spark of the idea that comes from sources like this. So, when he opened the museum, he insisted that there'd be a grand Frankenstein exhibit. And that means going back to the book, and that meant going back to the author, Mary Shelley, who wrote the novel Frankenstein, she started writing it when she was 16.And so, I was hired because—boom, look at me—my degree is suddenly colliding, right? So, I was hired by the Bakkan museum to create a one-woman show about the life of Mary Shelley, where I would play Mary Shelley and would perform it within the museum and elsewhere. And through the course of that research, I read the novel for the second time, but then I read it for my third, fourth, fifth onwards and upwards. Because the show was about 45 minutes long, I referenced, you know, the novel, the books, the popular culture, the science behind it. And the deep dive just never stopped. And so long after I was required to do the research and the show was done and up, I just kept reading. [00:04:00] And it gave me the opportunity to meet experts in this field and the peripheral field, as I would sort of travel with this show and be an ambassador for the museum and stuff like that. And, yeah, it still curls my toes. John: All right, so with that background. I'm going to just be honest right here and say, I've read Dracula once, I've read Frankenstein once. So that's where I'm coming from, and both a while ago. I remember Frankenstein was a little tougher to get through. Dracula had a bit more of an adventure feel to it, but something I don't think has really been captured particularly well in all the movies. But they both have lasted and lasted and lasted.Why do you think those books are still, those ideas are still as popular today? Dawn: I will say that I think Frankenstein, it depends on what you mean by the idea. Because on the surface, just the idea of bringing the dead to life, is, I mean, the Walking Dead franchise is right now one of the most popular franchises. I mean, I think we are really pivot on this idea. And I remember saying to a friend once that the part in [00:05:00]Revelation where the dead rise is like the only part of the Bible that I don't question. It's like, oh, the dead will get up. You know, we always just seem to be real sure that at some damned point, they're getting up. And so I think that that is part of why that it sticks in our brains. But then the story around Frankenstein—especially as it was written in 1818—has so many universal and timeless themes, like ambition and what is right and wrong. And the question that Jurassic Park posed in 1995 and continues to—1993 around there—and continues to pose, which is: just because science is capable of doing something, should it do something? And how do we define progress? Surely the very idea of being able to beat death and not die seems to be kind of the ultimate goal. And here is someone saying, okay, so let's just say, yeah. We beat death and everyone goes, oh shit, that'd be terrible. [00:06:00] You know? And then also, I always love the idea of the creature, the monster, Frankenstein's creature himself, who has a lot of characteristics with which people have identified throughout history. Some people say, for example, that Mary Shelley's whole purpose for writing Frankenstein was a question of: didn't God do this to us, make us these ugly creatures that are imperfect and bumbling around and horrifying? And then once he realized that we weren't perfect, he fled from us in fear or fled. He just keeps going and every generation has a new media that tells the story a little bit better, a little bit different, and yeah, there we are. John: I will say that for me, the most memorable part of the book was the section where the monster is the narrator and is learning. And I think with the exception of Kenneth Branagh's film, it it's something that isn't really touched on that much. There's a little bit in Bride of Frankenstein, of him going around and learning stuff. But the sort of moral questions that he [00:07:00] raises as he's learning—what it is to be human—are very interesting in the book. And I wish they were in more of the movies, but they're not. So, Brian on Dracula, again, we have dead coming to life. Why do we love that so much? Brian: Well, it's one of the questions that made me want to make a film about it myself: why has the vampire been so fascinating for hundreds of years? Why does it keep coming back? You know, it ebbs and flows in popularity, but it never leaves. And it keeps seeming to have Renaissance after Renaissance. Dracula specifically, I think one of the interesting things about that novel is how many different lenses you can look at it through and not be wrong.People have looked at it through the lens of, is this thing an imperialist story? Is it an anti-imperialist story? Is it a feminist story? Is it an anti-feminist story? And you can find support for any of those views reading Dracula. And I think that some of it might be accidental; there's times where Dracula is catching up to whatever the cultural zeitgeist [00:08:00] is right now. And we look at Dracula and we say, oh, he was thinking about this back then. Or maybe Bram Stoker was just very confused and he had a lot of different ideas. John: All right, let's explore that a little deeper. You each gave me an assignment of some movies to watch or to re-watch that you felt were worth talking about, in relation to your subject of Frankenstein or Dracula. I'm going to start with Frankenweenie, just because I had not seen it. And in going through it, I was reminded—of course, as one would be—of watching Frankenweenie, I was reminded of Love, Actually. Because I came to the realization after years of Love, Actually being around that it—Love, Actually—is not a romantic comedy. It is all romantic comedies, all put into one movie. And Frankenweenie is all horror films. Condensed, beautifully and cleverly into one very tasty souffle. [Frankenweenie Soundbite] John: I stopped at a certain point making note of the references to other horror films. Just because there are so many of them. But the idea that it references everything from Bride of Frankenstein to Gremlins. They do a rat transformation that's right out of American Werewolf in London. The fact that they have a science teacher played by Martin Landau doing the voice he did as Bela [00:10:00] Lugosi in Ed Wood. I mean, it's a really good story that they just layered and layered and layered and layered. What was it about that movie that so captivated you? Dawn: Well, so much of what you just said. And also it seems to me the epitome of the accessibility of the story of Frankenstein. The idea that if anyone can think of any moment in which if I could bring someone back to life. But what I love about it too, is that the novel Frankenstein that is not Victor Frankenstein's motivation. It generally tends to be the motivation of almost every character, including the Kenneth Branagh character--at some point, he, when Elizabeth dies, his wife dies for the second time, he says, yes, I'm going to try to bring her back. But it is so not the motivation of the scientist in the book. It is just ambition. He just wants to do something no one else has done. And lots of people die around him and he really never, ever says to himself at any point in the novel, I wish I could bring them back, I'm going to bring them back. That's never, that's never part of it. He just wants to be impressive. And so, I love [00:11:00] that it starts with that pure motivation of wanting to bring the dead to life; just wanting to bring your dog back, so that it's so accessible for everyone watching it. Who wouldn't wanna try this? But then, even in that scene with the teacher, when he shows the frog. And he's demonstrating that if you touch a dead frog with electricity, its legs shoot up, which give the kid the first idea of bringing his dog back. Which is like a deep cut in, in the sense that that's nothing -- Mary Shelley herself and her friends were watching experiments exactly like that before she wrote the book: galvanism and animal magnetism were these really popular public demonstrations happening in London and elsewhere where they would do just that. But because electricity itself was so new, I mean, it blew people's hair back you know, that these dead frogs were flopping around. It was the craziest thing. And a lot of them were thinking to themselves, surely it is only a matter of time before we can, we're gonna have our dead walking around all the time. So, it was so circulating and so forward. [00:12:00] So it's not just movie references and it's not just Frankenstein references. That movie really includes source deep source references for how Frankenstein came to be. And I just love it. John: Which brings me to Frankenstein, the 1931 version, in which Colin Clive has a similar point of view to what you were talking about from the book. He just wants, you know, he wants to be God. [Frankenstein soundbite] John: What I was most impressed with about that movie or a couple things was: it starts, it's like, boom. We're in it. First scene. There there's no preamble. There's no going to college. There's no talking about it, right? It's like, they're starting in the middle of act two. And I think a lot of what we think of when it comes to Frankenstein comes from that movie, [00:13:00] that the stuff that James Whale and his cinematographer came up with and the way they made things look, and that's sort of what people think of when they think of Frankenstein. Now, as you look back on that movie, what are your thoughts on the, what we'll call the original Frankenstein? Dawn: Yeah. Well, I love it. You'll find with me and Frankenstein that I'm not a purist. Like I love everything. Like I have no boundaries. I think this is great. One of the things that 1931 movie did was answer—because it had to, anytime you take a novel and make it a movie, you take a literary medium and make it a visual medium, there's obviously going to be things that you just have to interpret that the author left for you to make for yourself individual. And in this instance, that individual is the cinematographer. So, we're gonna get their take on this. And one of the real ambiguous things that Mary Shelley leaves for you in the novel is the spark of life. What is the spark of life? She does not in any [00:14:00]detail describe lightning or static or any of the recognizable or, or future developments of how electricity would've been. Brian: I was shocked when I first read that book and saw how little space was devoted to that, that lab scene. It's blink of an eye and it's over. Dawn: “I gathered the instruments of life around me that I may infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my.” Period. I just, what I love is what I love about film in general is that they went, oh, spark being all right, girl, it's a dark and stormy night and you know, and there's chains and there's bubblers and there's a thing. And the sky opens. I mean, God bless you, like way to just take that thought. Make it vivid, make it, build a set, make us believe it. And it's so, so pervasive that in Frankenweinie, you know, which of course is about Frankensein. [00:15:00] Like that is one that they do: he's got the white robe that ties in the back and the gloves. And in Young Frankenstein, it's the, you know, that lab scene. And so I love that. And the other thing that they had to do was describe the look of the creature, make the creature—Frankenstein's monster himself—look so like something. Because she, similarly in the novel, says that he is taller than a regular man, has dark hair and yellow watery eyes. That's all we know about what the Frankenstein looks like. And so, in 1931, Boris Karloff with the bolts. And it's black and white, remember, we don't think his skin is green. That he turned green at some point is kind of exciting, but of course he was just gray, but just dead flesh, you know, rotten, dead walking flesh is what's frightening. And, I just thought that the movie did that so well, John: I think the makeup was kind of a green/gray, and that when color photos came out of it, that's why someone went, oh, [00:16:00] it's green, but it wasn't green. Brian: I thought I saw a museum piece of, you know, an actual makeup bit that Jack Pierce did and I thought it was greenish. Dawn: Yeah. Greenish/gray. I think, yeah, the rots, just kind of trying to capture the sort of rotten flesh. Brian: It's just like the bride's hair was red. Dawn: That's right. That's right. My day job here in Los Angeles is as a street improviser at Universal Studios, Hollywood. And two of their most treasured characters of course are Frankenstein and Dracula. So, while most people might separate them, John, they are usually arm and arm where I work every day. And the bride has recently come back to the theme park as a walking character, and they gave her red hair. We don't mess around. John: That's excellent. But you mentioned Dracula, let's jump into the 1931 Dracula. There's a connection point between the two that I want to mention, which is the amazing Dwight Frye, who is Fritz, I believe in Frankenstein. And I'm not the first one to mention his naturalistic [00:17:00] acting kind of putting him above everybody else in that movie. Famously, when he's running up the stairs, stopping to pull his socks up at one point. He's just really, really good in that. And then you see him in Dracula as the, essentially the Harker character. I think he was called Harker -- Brian: Yeah. Well, he's Renfield in Dracula. They merged those two characters. I thought it was a smart move for a first attempt at the film. Yeah. And Dwight Frye, he's in a lot of other Universal horrors, too. Dwight Frye often doesn't get the credit. He somehow was not the leading man he should have been. John: I don't know why that is. He turns up again as an assistant in Bride of Frankenstein. He's a towns person in Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. And then he tragically died on a bus ride to an auto parts job that he took because he wasn't getting any acting work, which was too bad. A really, really good actor. Brian: There is another intersection besides the fact that they were both produced by Junior. Lugosi was put into the [00:18:00] short, the trial film they shot for Frankenstein. I can't call it a short film, because it was never intended for release. But they shot a cinematic test reel and they had Lugosi play the monster, but he was under a sheet the whole time. I think he may have been able to pull the sheet off. It's a lost film. We don't know for sure. We just have kind of the recollections of a few crew people. John: I've never heard of that. I would love to see that. Brian: I would too. I think a lot of people would really love to see it, but it was as much a kind of a testing ground for Lugosi— whether they wanted him to be the monster—as it was for some of the techniques, the things they wanted to try in the film. And what I understand is the producer saw the test reel and they said, yes, we love this look, this is the look we want you to give us. And then it's whatever version of Lugosi not getting that part you want to believe: whether Lugosi turned it down or the producers didn't like him or something. But he ended up not taking that part. John: But he is of course always known as Dracula. So, what are your thoughts on their adaptation? Which [00:19:00]again is not the first adaptation but is the kind of first official? Brian: Yeah. The first to bear the name Dracula, although, well, I'll back up a second. Because some releases of Nosferatu called it Dracula. He would be named as Dracula in the subtitles, you know, because that's an easy thing to do in silent film, you can just swap that out however you want to. But yes, it's the first authorized official film adaptation. John: Well, let's back up to Nosferatu, just for a second. Am I wrong in remembering that the Bram Stoker estate—Mrs. Stoker—sued Nosferatu and asked that all prints be destroyed? And they were except one print remained somewhere? Brian: Close. That is the popular story that she sued Prana Films. She won the lawsuit. All films were set to be destroyed. Now there's a guy named Locke Heiss and a few others who've been doing some research on this. And they will tell you that there's no proof that a single print was ever destroyed. It's a more fun story to say that, you know, this one was snuck away and now we have the film. But there was no real enforcement mechanism for having all the theaters [00:20:00]destroy the film. Who was going to go around and check and see if they actually destroyed this film or not? Nobody, right? So maybe some people destroyed it. Maybe Prana Films destroyed their remaining copies. But the exhibitors kept all of theirs and there's different versions and different cuts that have been found. So, we know that some of these reels went out in different formats or with different subtitles or even different edits. And some of them have made their way back to us. John: There's some really iconic striking imagery in that movie. That haunts me still. Brian: What I always tell people is see the film with a good live accompaniment, because that still makes it hold up as a scary film. If you see a good orchestra playing something really intense when Orlok comes through that door. It feels scary. You can feel yourself being teleported back to 1922 and being one of those audience people seeing that and being struck by it. John: What do you think it would be like to have [00:21:00] seen that or Dawn to have seen the original Frankenstein? I can't really imagine, given all that we've seen in our lives. If you put yourself back into 1931, and Boris Karloff walks backwards into the lab. I would just love to know what that felt like the first time. Dawn: You know, what is so great is I was fortunate enough to know Earl Bakkan who saw the movie in the theater in Columbia Heights, Minnesota when he was 10 years old.And he went, he had to sneak in. People would run outta this, out of the theater, screaming. I mean, when they would do the close up of Frankenstein's Monster's face, you know, women would faint. And of course that was publicized and much circulated, but it was also true. People were freaking out. And for Earl Bakkan—this young kid—the fear was overwhelming, as you said. And also in this theater, I was lucky enough, I did my show in that theater for Earl and his friends on his 81st birthday. So, I got to hear a [00:22:00] lot of these stories. And they played the organ in the front of the curtain. Brian: Is this the Heights theater? Dawn: Yes, the Heights. Brian: Oh, that's an amazing space. Dawn: So, they played the organ in there and it was like, oh my God. And it was so overwhelming. So, I'm glad you asked that question because I was really fortunate to have a moment to be able to sort of immerse myself in that question: What would it have been like to be in this theater? And it was moving and it was scary, man. And yeah, to your point, Brian, the music and the score. I mean, it was overwhelming. Also, I think there's something that we still benefit from today, which is when people tell you going in this might be way too much for you, this might scare you to death. So just be super, super careful. And your heart's already, you know… John: And it does have that warning right at the beginning. Dawn: Yeah. Versus now when people sit you down, they're like, I'm not gonna be scared by this black and white movie from 1931. And then you find yourself shuffling out of the bathroom at top speed in the middle of the night. And you're like, well, look at that. It got me. Brian: That reminds me, there [00:23:00] was a deleted scene from the 1931 Dracula that was a holdover from the stage play. Van Helsing comes out and he breaks the fourth wall and he speaks directly to the audience. And he says something to the effect of—I'm very much paraphrasing—about how we hope you haven't been too frightened by what you've seen tonight, but just remember these things are real. And then black out. And they cut that because they were afraid that they were really going to freak out their audience. Dawn: It's like a war of the world's thing, man. It's oh, that's so great. I love that. [Dracula Soundbite] John: So, Brian, what is your assessment of the 1931 version? As a movie itself and as an adaptation of Stoker's work? Brian: The things they had to do to try to adapt it to film, which they borrowed a lot of that from the stage play. They used the stage play as their guide point, and I think they made the best choices they could have been expected to make. You know, there's a lot of things that get lost and that's unfortunate, but I think they did a decent job. I don't find the 1931 version scary. I like Bela Lugosi. I think he's a great Dracula. I think he set the standard. With the possible [00:25:00]exception of the scene where the brides are stalking Harker slash Renfield, I don't think the imagery is particularly frightening. The Spanish version, I think does a little bit better job. And you know the story with the Spanish version and the English version? Dawn: We actually talk about it on the back lot tour of Universal Studios. Because they shot on the same sets in some cases. Brian: Yeah. My understanding is that Dracula shot during the day, Spanish Dracula would shoot at night. So, they got to benefit maybe a little bit by seeing, okay, how is this gonna be shot? How did Todd Browning do it? Okay. We're gonna do it a little bit differently. It's a little bit of a cheat to say they move the camera. They do move the camera a lot more in the Spanish version, but the performances are a little bit different. I'm going to, I can't get her name out. The actress who plays the ingenue in the Spanish Dracula, I'm not going to try it, but you can see her kind of getting more and more crazed as time goes on and her head is more infected by Dracula. You see these push-ins that you don't see in the English version. There's blocking [00:26:00] that's different. I put together a short course where I was just talking about how they blocked the staircases scene. The welcome to my house, the walking through spider web. And how it's blocked very differently in the two versions. And what does that say? What are these two directors communicating differently to us? In one, Harker slash Renfield is next to Dracula. In one, he's trailing behind him. In one, we cut away from the spider web before he goes through. And in the other one, we see him wrestle with it. That's not really what you asked, John. Sorry, I got off on a tear there. John: I agree with you on all points on the differences between the two films. Although I do think that all the Transylvania stuff in the English version is terrific: With the coach and the brides. The Spanish version, the biggest problem I have is that their Dracula looks ridiculous. Brian: He's not Bela Lugosi. You're right. John: He looks like Steve Carell doing Dracula and there is no moment, literally no moment [00:27:00] where he is scary, whereas Lugosi is able to pull that off. Brian: There's a lot of people who have observed that the Spanish Dracula would be a superior film were it not for Bela Lugosi being such an amazing Dracula in the English version. John: He really, really nailed it. Brian: And since he learned his lines phonetically, he could have done the Spanish Dracula. Just write it out for him phonetically, because he didn't speak English very well. John: If we could just go back, you know, cause a lot of things in history we could change, but if we could just be at that meeting and go, Hey, why not have Bela do it? Okay. So then let's jump ahead, still in Dracula form, to Horror of Dracula. From 1958. With Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. [Soundbite from Horror of Dracula] Brian: For some people, Lee is the ultimate Dracula, and I think that's a generational thing. I think he's great. He's got the stage presence and I love Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I don't like the film as a whole. It feels like I'm watching a play with a camera set back. It doesn't work for me the way it works for other people. That is personal taste. Don't come after me. John: It does, however, have one of the greatest, ‘Hey, we're gonna kill Dracula' scenes ever, with Peter Cushing running down the table and jumping up and pulling down the drapes and the sun. Brian: Oh, right. Interesting. Because in Dracula, the book, the sun is not deadly, remotely really. But that's [00:29:00]the influence of Nosferatu being pasted onto the Dracula cannon, that the sunlight is deadly to Dracula. Dawn: I remember having this fight very enthusiastically in the nineties when Bram Stoker's/Winona Ryder's Dracula came out and I was already sort of a literary nerd. And they were like, hey, they have a scene with him walking around during the day. And I was like, yeah, nerds. That's right. That's cuz vampires can walk around during the day.I was very already, like, you don't know anything, go back to history. Brian: And there's a seventies version where he's out on a cloudy day, but he is not hurt either. There suggestions in the book that he's more powerful at night. Dawn: He's a creature of the night. I always understood he had to wear sunglasses. He was sort of like a wolf. Like they show him as a wolf during the day; it can happen, but it's not great. Brian: I like the way they did it in the Gary Oldman version. He's suited up. He's got the sunglasses on. There's not a whole lot of skin exposed. But he's not [00:30:00] going to turn into smoke. John: Well, okay. Let's talk about that version and Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein. Dawn: Ug. John: I'm not going to spoil anything here, when I say it doesn't sound like Dawn cared it. Dawn: You open this, you opened this can of worms. John, sit down for a second. Listen. He calls it: Mary Shelly's fucking Frankenstein. I inserted the fucking. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to say that. He calls it. He calls it. How dare you, Kenneth, Brannagh, call this Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. So that was A-number one. But I went into it all excited: It's Kenneth Brannagh. Love him. He calls it Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and he starts with the ship captain out at sea, just like the book. And so I pull up my little, you know, security blanket and I'm like, oh, Kenneth Brannagh, do this to me, buddy. Do it to me buddy. Show me Mary Shelley Frankenstein as a movie. [00:31:00] And then he just fucks it up, John. And he doesn't actually do that at all. It's a total lie. He screws up every monologue. He makes up motivations and then heightens them. And it's dad. The acting is capital B, capital A, capital D across the board. Everybody sucks in this movie. It looks bad. The direction is bad, and it has nothing to do. He tries to bring Elizabeth back to life. This is a huge departure from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Brannagh, that's all I have to say for now. John: All right, I was fooled by the fact that he started at, at the north pole. Dawn: That's because he's tricking us, John. That's because it's the whole movie is a lie. John: Okay with that same mindset, what do we think of Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola? Dawn: I love that one. Brian: I'm afraid that I don't have, I can't match Dawn's intensity in either respect. Um, except I thought Robert DeNiro [00:32:00] was really good in Frankenstein. Dawn: But that's no, he's not. you're wrong. Your opinion is valid and wrong. Yeah, I'm kidding for listeners who don't know me. I am, I am kidding. Of course. Everybody's opinion is valid except for that one. Yeah. The movie, everything about that movie is bad. John: He is, I think, miscast. Dawn: And Helen Bonan Carter is one of the finest actresses of not just our generation, but of all time. And she sucks in this movie. John: Right. So. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Brian: Bram Stoker's Dracula. [Soundbite: Bram Stoker's Dracula] Brian: Also produced by Branagh. And I assume that is the connection, why they both start with the author's name. I always call it Coppola's Dracula because it gets too confusing to make that distinction. I thought it was a decent movie, but it didn't feel like Dracula. It felt like someone who had heard of Dracula and wrote a good script based on what they had heard. So many divergences that bothered me, although I think it's aged better than it felt the first time. I remember seeing it when it first came out in the nineties and not thinking much of it. And I think audiences agreed with me and it seems like it's been kinder, that audiences have been kinder to it as it's gotten older. John: Okay. Dawn, you love it. Dawn: I loved it. I loved it. It, you know what though? That was one of [00:34:00] those movies that unlike, unlike Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I can't look at with like an adult critical eye because I, what year did it come out? Was it like 90, 92? I'm like middle school getting into high school and like Winona Ryder was everything. Vampires are everything. I mean, Gary Oldman is the, is a great actor and it's so sexy, very sexy. The sex is Primo. And so I remember loving it, very moving. I don't remember comparing it as certainly not as viciously to the novel because I read Dracula after I had seen the movie. And so there's always that inherent casting where Nina is always going to be Winona Ryder. But I do remember really loving the Gothic convention of the letter and that the movie did seem to utilize and to great effect how letter writing can build suspense and give us different perspectives in a, in a unique cinematic way. Brian: [00:35:00] The two or three biggest stakes that film puts in the ground are not to be found in the book. So there's no love story in the book. There's no Vlad in the book. John: Can I interject there? Isn't that basically, didn't they just rip that off of Dark Shadows, The idea of my long lost love is reincarnated in this woman. I must connect with her. Brian: That is a good question, John. I'm glad you asked that because I call it the doppelganger love interest. Right? We first see that, the first time I know of it happening, I'm sure there's an earlier precedent, is in The Mummy, but then Dark Shadows does it. But that's not where Stoker, I mean, that's not where Coppola and a screenwriter claimed to have gotten the idea. They claimed to have gotten it from Dan Curtis's Dracula in 74. John: Dan Curtis, who produced Dark Shadows, with Barnabas Collins, falling in love with his reincarnated love. Brian: But Dan Curtis's Dracula comes out two years after Blacula. That has a reincarnated love interest. John: Not only does the Blaclua [00:36:00] have a reincarnated love interest, but if I'm remembering movie correctly at the end, when she says I don't want to go with you. He goes, okay. And he's ready to go home. It's like, sorry to bother you. Brian: No, uh, in Blacula, he commits suicide John: Oh, that's it? Yeah. He walks out into the sun. Brian: He goes home in a different way. John: Yes. He's one of my favorite Draculas, the very stately William Marshall. Brian: Yeah, absolutely. That is a favorite of mine. John: Anyway, you were saying stakes in the ground from Coppola's Dracula. Brian: Well, the, the love story, the equating Dracula with Vlad the Impaler. And I felt like they did Lucy really bad in that movie. They had her turn into a wanton harlot, which is not in keeping with the book. Some things are okay, but they really said these are the building blocks of our story and that bugged me. But Anthony Hopkins I liked, so, all right. Dawn: Alright, but see, this [00:37:00] the itch that still that still makes me wanna scratch though: why say Bram Stoker's Dracula? Why say Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? I mean, because I think you heard the venom, obviously. If they took Mary Shelley's name off that thing, you can make Frankenweenie. And I will love, like, I love Frankenweenie. Do your Frankenstein homage all day, all the time. But when you call, when you say it's Bram Stoker's, I think that this is what has been frustrating historians like me and getting high school students Ds in English class ever since. Because it just creates the false perception that you've basically read the book. Right. Or that you, if you know the thing you know the book and it's just a cheap ploy. And I don't like it. Brian: I think, somebody correct me on this, that there, there had been a plan to do a reboot of the Universal monster franchise, and these two movies were supposed to be the reboot of it. [00:38:00] And then they would've then done HG Wells' Invisible Man. John: The Mummy killed it. They've tried to reboot it several times. And that was the first attempt. Brian: Yeah, I've heard that called the dark universe. They were trying to do their own MCU. Dawn: Yeah. Well, at Universal Studios, there is of course in, in LA, in general, there's the property wars, you know? What what's, who has what? And sometimes those get really blurred. Like why does Universal Studios have Harry Potter? When we can see Warner Brothers from the top of our wall/ And that's obviously, you know, those things happen. But when it comes to like the IP or intellectual property, those original monsters are so valuable and they always are at Halloween. And then it's like, sort of, how can we capitalize on this? And yeah. And it's cross generational. Brian: All they really own right now is the look right? They own Jack Pierce's makeup job from Frankenstein. Dawn: But I think that that's exactly the point; [00:39:00] the delusion of what is it that you own if you own, you know, Frankenstein, whatever. But yes, there was definitely an interest to sort of revamp all of the original Universal Monsters they call them and it's the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Invisible Man. John: It's everybody who shows up in Mad Monster Party. Dawn: Exactly. [Soundbite: Mad Monster Party] Dawn: But yeah, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise, was a tremendous flop. And I think that sort of took the wind out of everybody's sails. John: Let me ask you this, Dawn. If Mel Brooks had titled his movie, Mary Shelley's Young Frankenstein, instead of Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, would you have a problem with that? Dawn: Yeah, no, but no, I would not have had a problem, because that would've been irony and juxtaposition. Not just a straight lie. John: So that brings us to some comedies. Young Frankenstein and Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, which I was very surprised and a little unnerved to [00:40:00] realize a few years back, Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein was made a mere 10 years before I was born. And I had always assumed it was way back then. And it's like, no, it wasn't all that way back then. It was pretty, pretty recently. Brian: That happened to me when I realized that Woodstock was only six years before my birth. And it always seemed like ancient history. John: Is that the common thing, Madame Historian? That people kind of forget how recent things were? Dawn: Oh yeah. Remember Roe V. Wade. Sorry, too soon. Brian: We're recording this on that day. Dawn: Yeah, absolutely. I think that it happens to everybody so much faster than you think it's going to. I remember looking around in the nineties feeling, well, surely the seventies was ancient history, you know, because they had That Seventies Show, which debuted as like a period piece. I am still very young and hip and happening and [00:41:00] they are in production for That Nineties Show right now. And I said to my husband, That Nineties Show. I was like, Jesus, I guess that's 20 years because I was in the nineties they did That Seventies Show. And he goes, no baby that's 30 years. And I was like, I'm sorry. I said, I'm sorry, what? He goes, the nineties was 30 years ago. And I just had to sit down and put my bunion corrector back on because these feet are killing me. John: All right. Well, let's just talk about these two comedies and then there's a couple other things I wanna quickly hit on. What are our thoughts on, let's start with Young Frankenstein? [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Dawn: I told you I'm not an idealist and we're not a purist about Frankenstein, but I am an enthusiast. So that is why I told you to watch Kenneth Branagh's movie, even though I hate it so much. And that is also why I love Young Frankenstein, because I think that it is often what brings people into the story. For many, many people, it introduces them to the creature. They may know literally nothing about Frankenstein except for Young Frankenstein. And that's actually fine with me because I'm a comedian myself. And I believe that parody is high honor. And often when you parody and satirize something, especially when you do it well, it's because you went to the heart of it. Because you got right in there into the nuggets and the creases of it. And there is something about Young [00:43:00] Frankenstein as ridiculous as it is that has some of that wildness and the hilarity and The Putting on the Ritz. I did find out from my Universal Studios movie history stuff, that that scene was very nearly cut out. Mel Brooks did not like it. And he just didn't like that they were doing it. And of course it's the one, I feel like I'm not the only one who still has to make sure that my beverage is not only out of my esophagus, but like aside, when they start doing it. [Soundbite: Young Frankenstein] Brian: And I understand they were about to throw away the sets from the 1931 Frankenstein when Mel Brooks or his production designer came up and said, Stop stop. We want to use these and they were able to get the original sets or at least the set pieces. John: I believe what it [00:44:00] was, was they got Kenneth Strickfaden's original machines. Ken Strickfaden created all that stuff for the 1931 version and had been used on and off, you know, through all the Frankenstein films. And it was all sitting in his garage and the production designer, Dale Hennessy went out to look at it because they were thinking they had to recreate it. And he said, I think it still works. And they plugged them in and they all still worked. Brian: Oh, wow. Dawn: Oh man. It's alive. John: Those are the original machines. Dawn: I didn't know that. That's fantastic. John: At the time when I was a young kid, I was one of the few kids in my neighborhood who knew the name Kenneth Strickfaden, which opened doors for me. Let me tell you when people find out, oh, you know of the guy who designed and built all those? Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I know all that. One of my favorite stories from Young Frankenstein is when they sold the script. I forget which studio had said yes. And as they were walking out of the meeting, Mel Brooks turned back and said, oh, by the way, it's gonna be in black and white, and kept going. And they followed him down the hall and said, no, it can't be in black and white. And he said, no, it's not gonna work unless it's in [00:45:00] black and white. And they said, well, we're not gonna do it. And they had a deal, they were ready to go. And he said, no, it's gonna stay black and white. And he called up Alan Ladd Jr. that night, who was a friend of his, and said, they won't do it. And he said, I'll do it. And so it ended up going, I think, to Fox, who was more than happy to, to spend the money on that. And even though Mel didn't like Putting on the Ritz, it's weird, because he has almost always had musical numbers in his films. Virtually every movie he's done, he's either written a song for it, or there's a song in it. So, it's weird to me. I've heard Gene Wilder on YouTube talk about no, no, he didn't want that scene at all, which is so odd because it seems so-- Brian: I never thought about that, but you're right. I'm going in my head through all the Mel Brooks films I can remember. And there is at least a short musical interlude in all of them that I can think of. John: But let's talk then about what's considered one of the best mixes of horror and comedy, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein [00:46:00] [Soundbite: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein] Brian: As with comedies of that age, it, it starts off slow, but then it starts to get very funny as time goes on. And all the comedy is because of Abbot and Costello. They are the, [00:47:00] the chemistry they have on screen. I don't know how much of that was actually scripted and how much of it was just how they rolled with each other. But it works really well. Not much of the comedy is provided by the monsters or the supporting cast or even there's maybe a cute, a few sight gags. But wouldn't you say most of the comedy is just the dynamics between them? John: It is. The scary stuff is scary and it's balanced beautifully at the end where they're being chased through the castle. The monsters stayed pretty focused on being monsters and Abbot and Costello's reactions are what's funny. Dawn: If I may, as someone who has already admitted I haven't seen much of the movie, it's feels to me like it may be something like Shaun of the Dead, in the sense that you get genuinely scared if zombie movies scare, then you'll have that same adrenaline rush and the monsters stay scary. They don't have to get silly. Or be a part of the comedy for your two very opposing one's skinny, one's fat, you know, and the way that their friendship is both aligning and [00:48:00]coinciding is the humor. Brian: I believe there is one brief shot in there where you get to see Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman all in the same shot. And I think that might be the only time that ever happens in the Universal Franchise. During the lab scene, does that sound right John? John: I think you really only have Dracula and the Wolfman. I'll have to look it up because the monster is over on another table-- Brian: Isn't he underneath the blanket? John: Nope, that's Lou Costello, because it's his brain that they want. And so they're fighting over that table. And then just a little, I have nothing but stupid fun facts. There's a point in it, in that scene where the monster gets off the table and picks up someone and throws them through a window. And Glenn Strange, who was playing the monster at that point -- and who is one of my favorite portrayers of the monster, oddly enough -- had broken his ankle, I believe. And so Lon, Chaney, Jr. put the makeup on and did that one stunt for him, cuz he was there. Brian: He did that as Frankenstein's monster? John: Yes. Frankenstein. Brian: I didn't know that. Yes, I [00:49:00] did not know that. So he plays both of those roles in that movie? John: Yes. Let me just take a moment to defend Glenn Strange, who played the monster three times: House of Dracula, House of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. In House of Frankenstein, he is following up the film before that, which was Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, in which, in this very convoluted universe, Lugosi is playing the monster, even though he didn't wanna do it in 31. Because his brain in Ghost of Frankenstein had been put into the Monster's body. So, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, it is Lugosi as the Frankenstein monster. It is Lon Chaney Jr., who had played the monster in Ghost of Frankenstein, now back to playing Larry Talbot. So, it is Wolfman versus Frankenstein. And the premise of the script was he's got Ygor's brain and it's not connecting properly. He's gone blind. They shot that. They had tons of dialogue between the two characters of Larry Talbot pre-wolfman, and the monster, Bela Lugosi. And the executives thought it sounded silly. So they went in and they cut [00:50:00] out all of Lugosi's dialogue out of the movie. So now you have a blind monster stumbling around with his arms in front of him, but he doesn't talk. And if you look at the movie, you can see where he's supposed to be talking and they cut away quickly. And it's really convoluted. Glenn Strange who then has to play the monster next, looks at that and goes well, all right, I guess I'm still blind. I guess I'm still stumbling around with my arms in front of him. Which is the image most people have of the Frankenstein monster, which was never done by Boris in his three turns as the monster. So with, in that regard, I just think Glenn Strange did a great job of picking up what had come before him and making it work moving forward. Anyway, a couple other ones I wanna just hit on very quickly. Brian asked me to watch Dracula in Istanbul. Under the circumstances, a fairly straightforward retelling of the Dracula story. I would recommend it--it is on YouTube--for a couple of reasons. One, I believe it's the first time that Dracula has actual canine teeth. Brian: Yes. John: Which is important. But the other is there's the scene where he's talking to Harker about, I want [00:51:00] you to write three letters. And I want you to post date the letters. It's so convoluted, because he goes into explaining how the Turkish post office system works in such a way that the letters aren't gonna get there. It's just this long scene of explaining why he needs to write these three letters, and poor Harker's doing his best to keep up with that. That was the only reason I recommend it. Brian: That movie is based on a book called Kazıklı Voyvoda, which means The Warrior Prince and it was written in, I wanna say the 1920s or thirties, I wanna say thirties. It's the first book to equate Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, which I've come back to a couple times now, but that's significant because it was a Turkish book and the Turks got that right away. They immediately saw the name Dracula like, oh, we know who we're talking about. We're talking about that a-hole. It was not until the seventies, both the [00:52:00] fifties and the seventies, that Western critics and scholars started to equate the two. And then later when other scholars said, no, there, there's not really a connection there, but it's a fun story. And it's part of cannon now, so we can all play around with it. John: But that wasn't what Bram Stoker was thinking of? Is that what you're saying? Brian: No. No, he, he wasn't, he wasn't making Dracula into Vlad the Impaler. He got the name from Vlad the Impaler surely, but not the deeds. He wasn't supposed to be Vlad the Impaler brought back to life. John: All right. I'm going to ask you both to do one final thing and then we'll wrap it up for today. Although I could talk to you about monsters all day long, and the fact that I'd forgotten Dawn, that you were back on the Universal lot makes this even more perfect. If listeners are going to watch one Dracula movie and one Frankenstein movie, what do you recommend? Dawn, you go first. Dawn: They're only watching one, then it's gotta be the 1931 Frankenstein, with Boris. Karloff, of course. I think it has captured [00:53:00] the story of Frankenstein that keeps one toe sort of beautifully over the novel and the kind of original source material that I am so in love with, but also keeps the other foot firmly in a great film tradition. It is genuinely spooky and it holds so much of the imagery of any of the subsequent movies that you're only watching one, so that's the one you get. But if you do watch any more, you've got this fantastic foundation for what is this story and who is this creature? John: Got it. And Brian, for Dracula? Brian: I was tossing around in my head here, whether to recommend Nosferatu or the 1931 Dracula. And I think I'm going to have to agree with Dawn and say the 1931 for both of them, because it would help a viewer who was new to the monsters, understand where we got the archetypes we have. Now, why, when you type an emoji into your phone for Vampire, you get someone with a tuxedo in the slick back hair or, I think, is there a Frankenstein emoji? Dawn: There is, and he's green with bolts in his neck. [00:54:00] Brian: Yeah, it would. It will help you understand why we have that image permanently implanted in our heads, even though maybe that's not the source material. We now understand the origins of it. Dawn: And if I may too, there's, there's something about having the lore as founded in these movies is necessary, frankly, to almost understand what happens later. I mean, I get very frustrated in 2022, if there is a movie about vampires that takes any time at all to explain to me what a vampire is, unless you're breaking the rules of the vampire. For example, you know, like in Twilight the vampire sparkles, like a diamond when it's out in the sunshine and is the hottest thing ever. That's really great to know. I didn't know that about vampires. That wasn't necessarily true before, you know, but you don't need to take a lot of time. In fact, when you do read Dracula, one of the things for me that I found very frustrating was the suspense of what is it with this guy? They were like: He said we couldn't bring [00:55:00] garlic and they take all this time. And you're kind of as a modern reader being like, cuz he is a fucking vampire. Move on. Like we know this, we got this one. It's shorthand Brian: That's one snide thing I could say about the book is that there are times where Dracula's powers seem to be whatever his powers need to be to make this next scene creepy and move on to the next chapter. John: He was making it up as he went along. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

John is clever, Alison has lost her composure, and Liz is confused by WSFS. Please email your letters of comment to comment@octothorpecast.uk and tag @OctothorpeCast when you post about the show on social media. Content warnings this episode: None Letters of comment Kev McVeigh (on Octothorpe 63) Burntcoat by Sarah Hall (epub, hardback, audiobook, Amazon) Congratulations to Raj for catching up! [Do not listen from the beginning – John] [*It is also ok**ay to skip episodes *– Alison] Mark Plummer Chris Garcia Farah Mendlesohn British Fantasy Society Awards Maureen Kincaid Speller Tribute on Strange Horizons Glasgow 2024 Join here! WSFS Memberships These have confused some people WSFS Memberships let you vote in the Hugo Awards and in Site Selection But not in the WSFS Business Meeting Cheryl Morgan at Salon Futura Picks: John: A Vertical Empire: History of the British Rocketry Programme by CN Hill (ebook, paperback, Amazon) Alison: Wandavision (Disney+) Liz: Return to Monkey Island (Steam, Nintendo Switch) Credits Cover art: Glasgow by Sara Felix with kind permission of Glasgow 2024 Alt text: The Glasgow 2024 logo with black line drawings of John, Alison and Liz on three planets. Alison has a tiara. In place of the words “Glasgow 2024” are the words “Octothorpe 68”. The logo is on a background in Octothorpe's purple. Theme music: “Fanfare for Space” by Kevin MacLeod (CC BY 4.0)

The yin and yang of Lennon and McCartney are rarely so perfectly on display as they are in the chorus of "Getting Better." Paul's eternal optimist, "I've got to admit it's getting better, a little better all the time" runs right up against the sardonic side of John: "It can't get no worse." On this Sgt. Pepper tune, they find meld an upbeat, bouncy melody with darker, quite self-aware lyrics about the worst parts of one's personality, and the human want to better one's self when love is involved. Sometimes we forget these guys are actually human, and made mistakes just like all of us. Though it maybe doesn't add much to the "concept" theme of Pepper, it's certainly a great and catchy song, and a band moment on a record where those full band moments start to become less frequent. We're thrilled to have our friend Debbie Davis back this week! One of the most revered singers in New Orleans, and now part of a touring bluegrass 80s cover band (how wild is that?), Debbie's knowledge of music and what makes things tick is always a pleasure to get to enjoy. We discuss all matter of issues, from traumatizing kid movies, the worst places to accidentally dose yourself, Jerry Garcia neckties, the lads' self-awareness, and Julia FINALLY gets with the porridge train! Be sure to follow Debbie's new band, Frankie Goes to Dollywood to see when they're headed your way! What do you think? Too high? Too low? Just right? Let us know in the comments on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rankingthebeatles, Instagram @rankingthebeatles, or Twitter @rankingbeatles! Be sure to check out RTB's official website, www.rankingthebeatles.com and our brand new webstore!! RANK YOUR OWN BEATLES with our new RTB poster! Pick up a tshirt, coffee cup, tote bag, and more! Enjoying the show, and wanna show your support? Buy Us A Coffee! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rankingthebeatles/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rankingthebeatles/support

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson New York's massive fraud case against the Trumps; Ron DeSantis' treatments of asylum seekers; and Dahlia Lithwick's Lady Justice.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Trading Barriers: Immigration and the Remaking of Globalization, Margaret E. Peters Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, by Dahlia Lithwick Ruth Igielnik for The New York Times: “Trump Support Remains Unmoved by Investigations, Poll Finds” Here are this week's chatters: John: It was supposed to be...The Philosophy of Modern Song, by Bob Dylan Emily: Somebody Somewhere; Reservation Dogs David: The Space Force Anthem Listener chatter from Danny Edgel: Frank Vaisvilas and Sarah Volpenhein for The Green Bay Press-Gazette: “Oneida Nation Steps In To Defend Indian Child Welfare Act In Us Supreme Court Case” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment Emily, David, and John discuss the vacation of Adnan Syed's murder conviction.   Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson New York's massive fraud case against the Trumps; Ron DeSantis' treatments of asylum seekers; and Dahlia Lithwick's Lady Justice.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Trading Barriers: Immigration and the Remaking of Globalization, Margaret E. Peters Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, by Dahlia Lithwick Ruth Igielnik for The New York Times: “Trump Support Remains Unmoved by Investigations, Poll Finds” Here are this week's chatters: John: It was supposed to be...The Philosophy of Modern Song, by Bob Dylan Emily: Somebody Somewhere; Reservation Dogs David: The Space Force Anthem Listener chatter from Danny Edgel: Frank Vaisvilas and Sarah Volpenhein for The Green Bay Press-Gazette: “Oneida Nation Steps In To Defend Indian Child Welfare Act In Us Supreme Court Case” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment Emily, David, and John discuss the vacation of Adnan Syed's murder conviction.   Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson New York's massive fraud case against the Trumps; Ron DeSantis' treatments of asylum seekers; and Dahlia Lithwick's Lady Justice.   Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Trading Barriers: Immigration and the Remaking of Globalization, Margaret E. Peters Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, by Dahlia Lithwick Ruth Igielnik for The New York Times: “Trump Support Remains Unmoved by Investigations, Poll Finds” Here are this week's chatters: John: It was supposed to be...The Philosophy of Modern Song, by Bob Dylan Emily: Somebody Somewhere; Reservation Dogs David: The Space Force Anthem Listener chatter from Danny Edgel: Frank Vaisvilas and Sarah Volpenhein for The Green Bay Press-Gazette: “Oneida Nation Steps In To Defend Indian Child Welfare Act In Us Supreme Court Case” For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment Emily, David, and John discuss the vacation of Adnan Syed's murder conviction.   Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Cheyna Roth. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're Live. There's a specific scenario where your goals are met, success is finally here and what most people do is start relaxing during this process, which is a big mistake.   Josh asks John for tips and standard processes during this time, it is always a good idea to be prepared for what's coming.    Thought of the week    John - “It all depends on what you are willing to do to get to the next level”

In this episode of ALPS In Brief, Mark and the founders of Sensei Enterprises discuss cybersecurity options and support for solo and small law firms. Somebody's got to take care of you and that's just what they do. Transcript: MARK BASSINGTHWAIGHTE: Hello, I am Mark Bassingthwaighte, the risk manager here at ALPS, and welcome to ALPS In Brief, the podcast that comes to you from the historic Florence Building in beautiful downtown Missoula, Montana. I am back from a trip into the home office in Missoula, and back in the satellite office here in Florida, and have with me two folks that I've just had the joy and pleasure of getting to know over the years, and the privilege to work with a few times over the years at various ABA events, and it's just been a lot of fun. MARK: Please help me in welcoming Sharon Nelson and John Simek. Sharon and John are President and Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, which is really the heart of the topic we're going to talk about today. Before we jump into some of the questions and things I'd like us to visit about Sharon and John, may I have each of you take a couple of minutes and share whatever you'd like to share about yourselves? What would help our listeners get to know you a bit better? SHARON NELSON: I'll start, and then I'll turn it over to John. What we do at Sensei Enterprise is managed information technology, managed cybersecurity services, and digital forensics. We have three branches, and that means we're running a fire station without a Dalmatian here, so there's always emergencies. It gets very difficult to keep all the balls in the air. We are also married with six children and 10 grandchildren. We're together all day and all night too. MARK: I love it. JOHN SIMEK: You didn't tell [inaudible 00:01:53], you're a lawyer though. SHARON: Oh well. JOHN: Do they care? SHARON: Maybe. John is the veteran technologist and I am the lawyer, and that's why we decided to work together when we started the company some 25 years ago, more than that now, just a little bit. John was the talent and I was the lawyer/marketer who could sell ice cubes to Eskimos, so that worked out really well for us both. JOHN: I'm not a lawyer, as you can probably tell. I'm an engineer by degree, and been involved in technology informally even before the internet. I remember that presidential candidate that was trying to create [inaudible 00:02:40]. Whatever, but back in the days of the modems and all that stuff. But I have a lot of technical certifications, formal training as well. I guess a lot of people think that I should be wearing a pocket protector and have a propeller head. But yeah, as Sharon said, I do the technology stuff, testifying expert as well, because of the forensics and all that. I just got done with a deposition a couple weeks ago that was really entertaining, at least to me, but not for the other attorney. SHARON: That's how it's always supposed to turn out. I forgot to say Mark, that I was the President of the Virginia State Bar a few years ago. That was [inaudible 00:03:25]. JOHN: That's how we ended up in Montana one year. SHARON: Yeah, that's how we ended up coming to see you folks out in Montana. MARK: Indeed. That's right. That was a good time. SHARON: It was a wonderful time. JOHN: I did go fishing when we were out there. MARK: There we go. Boy, there's no place better. You want to talk about some quiet country time on the river with a fly? A lot of fun. One of the things that I've never really visited with you guys about, I'm genuinely very interested. Sharon, you've talked, years ago, you've been a lawyer for quite some time. How did you make this jump? Was that always the plan to go into this Sensei Enterprise type business, the alternative practice, a non-traditional track if you will? How did this all come about? SHARON: Life is full of accidents. As I was a young [inaudible 00:04:22]. JOHN: We're experts at that. SHARON: Oh yeah. When my first child was born, her condition required me to stay home through several surgeries and several years. She's fine, but I ended up working from home as a lawyer. And then, later on after I had been a lawyer and been seriously involved in the Bar Association, I had this very nice man who taught technology to anyone at colleges, and he was helping me computerize my law practice back in the '80s. I was pretty wired up for a solo. But then, he got relocated because of his job, and I said, "What am I going to do without you?" And he said, "Well, I've got this friend down the street, and he's really brilliant, but he's a pain in the butt." And he said, "But I'll set up a lunch, and if you can stand him, then he could do a better job even than me." SHARON: I met him for lunch, I could stand him, and so, we started out with him helping me with my law practice technology. Ultimately, he had always wanted his own company, and he just looked at me one day and said, "You know, I could be the talent of a company, and you're a lawyer, and you can sell anybody anything, so why don't we hook up and form a company?" And that's how we got started. MARK: Wow. That's awesome. I love that. I love that. Oh my. Can you tell me a little bit about the types of services? You can a little highlight or overview, but can we dig in a little bit in terms of the types of services that you offer? I'm also interested, how would you describe your typical client? I know that you do a lot of work I think with businesses that are not just... You're not limiting your services in other words to law firms. Is what you have to offer, would it be useful, beneficial to solo small firm lawyers around the country? SHARON: We actually are devoted to solo small firm lawyers, not that they are an exclusive client roster. We have a client that has over a thousand people. JOHN: Not a legal entity. SHARON: No, not a legal entity. But in any event, we do all sizes. But we have a special feeling in our hearts for the needs of the solo small, because most companies are not interested in them. They don't really want them, because they can't get much of a profit out of them. JOHN: They might have some minimum. Unless you've got 10 bodies or more, they're not interested to even talk to you. SHARON: And so, somebody has got to take care of these people, so we really specialize in finding cost-effective things that they can use to do what they need to do. That's been something that we've been celebrated for, is that we do take care of solo and smalls along with the bigger firms. It's been a mix, Mark, and I really feel strongly about that because I was a solo myself, and I know how hard it was to get competent help and to get things that you could afford. And now that cybersecurity is so important, it's really critical that the solo and small firms have people to guide them in a way that's budget-friendly, because this stuff can be really expensive. MARK: Yeah, I'm well aware. What types of services can you help? If I'm just a solo stuck here in Florida, or Montana, or Iowa, what can you do for me? JOHN: Basically, we do an assessment, an initial assessment, come in there to see what you've got going, and is it appropriate? Should we forklift some things? Are you in the Cloud even? Because today, it's so much more affordable and flexible to be in the Cloud. SHARON: And secure, more secure. JOHN: Maybe you should be considering that. We do have some clients that are remote, up in Massachusetts as well as down the coast, and we can do a lot of things remotely. Sometimes though, you do have to have boots on the ground, and some folks might have a local person if they need hands-on to something. But generally no, we can get equipment, we can figure it, we can ship it, do all that. But essentially, get you in a position where you're a heck of a lot more secure with your technology. SHARON: And you're getting good recommendations from us about what [inaudible 00:09:08]. JOHN: Stability, backup. SHARON: Practice management systems, document management. We can help them work with the companies who have appropriate pricing for solo and small. That's really our niche, is to be able to do that for those people. The solo and smalls are really neglected. JOHN: But it really is a unique thing though, because there's not a template. You can't go to the green drawer and pull out a system for a solo. SHARON: No. I mean, they all have different needs. JOHN: They've got different needs, different things that are important to them, different types of practice, their workflows are different. We really do try to, as Sharon said, customize and make sure that they do have a cost-effective solution. The other advantage I think we have is that we know a lot about the law, and a lot about what lawyers' responsibilities are, and what their- SHARON: And what's ethical. And what's ethical has changed, Mark. In today's world, you have to take reasonable measures to protect client data and confidential data. These days, we have gotten to the point where one reasonable measure is having two-factor authentication, because it's almost always free. It comes with Office 365, which so many solo smalls use. You just have to turn it on. That's where of course the problem comes. JOHN: That's got to be really hard. SHARON: It's the convenience factor, though. They want to get right in. They don't want to have to get a text on their phone, or push a button on their phone. JOHN: Type a code. SHARON: Type a code, and whatever it is. There's all kinds of two-factor authentication obviously, and you have to help them get past the I don't want the extra step to, I have to have the extra step, because ethics demands this of me, because multifactor authentication stops almost 100% of credential-based account attacks. You don't get us that much better than that. JOHN: Especially not when it's free. SHARON: Yes, especially when it's free to do. You just have to put up with one little annoying thing that you have to do. JOHN: You can trust devices too, so it's not every time. You don't have to do this 30 days, or whatever it is, whatever the period of time is. A lot of folks I don't think realize that. They think when they hear this, they go, "No, I'm not going to do this every darn time I connect." You don't have to. SHARON: You said, tell a story. Here's a story. We've been able to successfully convince most of our law firm clients that they must ethically do this. There were several who protested, and they dragged their feet, and they dragged their feet, and then one of them got hit by ransomware. That's what happens when you don't take some advice. First thing they said was, "Okay, we got hit. We were attacked. I guess you were right about that 2FA thing, so could you come back and fix that for us now?" MARK: Hard lesson learned, but boy is it a good lesson once they understand it. I'm hearing you can do lots of advising and guidance on terms of how to become secure, taking into consideration regulations we're subject to, the ethical rules, et cetera. I just had somebody call me up yesterday about, they were talking about some other things, and a side question came out. It's a solo setting up her own firm, and she's interested, are there services and people out there that can help monitor the systems to give you a heads up? Her question was, how do I know if I'm breached? Can you help them answer that, or help them deal with that risk? SHARON: You have today an ethical obligation to monitor for a breach. That's pretty much been established. Now that you know you have to monitor, that's one reason why we are a managed service provider, because we have all sorts of alarms, and alerts, and we check things like backups to make sure everything is going the way it should. JOHN: There's a lot of automation. SHARON: There's a lot of automation. The thing is, when something goes wrong, we'll get a notice, so the lawyer is protected by having the managed services and the alerts that will go to their provider. That way, they know right away, they can usually fix it right away, or if the power is out or something like that, they have to wait until power comes back obviously. But that's why you want someone watching over all of this for you, because the average lawyer has no idea what any of these alerts mean. These things go off, and they're clueless. You want that in the hands of a professional, and it's not very expensive to get it. And so, this idea of endpoint detection and response, this is another thing that we would say is reasonably required in order for you to monitor for those breaches. JOHN: It's not just monitoring, it's also- SHARON: React. JOHN: Yeah, it reacts to it. Artificial intelligence is a part of what the tool uses, in conjunction with human beings in a security operation center. If you get a ransomware attack as an example, or there's some rogue process that comes and starts and the system sees that, wait a minute, this is outside of baseline operation, and it can even automatically take the device off the wire, off the network. But they have, at least the solutions that we're implementing for our clients, it has a rollback capability. If it's got a problem, and you say, "Shoot, you know what? Let's go back to 30 minutes ago," and put your system back into a state before this happened, and we've got that ability. SHARON: It's really kind of magic to lawyers. As much as we try to explain it, and John did in fairly simple terms, they really don't get it. They just get that the magic works. MARK: Right. That's okay. They don't need to get it. If they have somebody like you behind the scenes taking care of it, they just need to make sure these kinds of things are in play or in place. May I also assume that if I have, I do stupid on my laptop, and I get hit with something that we talk about ransomware as a classic example, are you also offering services to help me address and deal with these kinds of breaches? SHARON: Absolutely. That's what you do. JOHN: I do want to point out though Mark, all the technology and things that we do do, you cannot fix a human being. MARK: Right. Oh boy. SHARON: Who clicks on a phishing email or a phishing text? JOHN: Sharon talked about a story. We had a story from... What's today? Thursday. I think it was either Friday, or it was no longer than a week ago. We've got all these things in place, the software, [inaudible 00:16:33], whatever, and yet we've got a lawyer that gets this message, and then he actually initiates a phone call- SHARON: To the bad guys. JOHN: To the bad guys, and then is carrying on this conversation, and under his own ID, he's opening up his machine to this caller, and I'm going, "I can't stop that." SHARON: They finally asked him to enter some bank information- JOHN: And he got suspicious. SHARON: Then he finally got suspicious and severed the connection. JOHN: He called us and we said, "Whoa, hold on." SHARON: But that kind of thing happens a whole lot. People do stupid stuff, and of course now everybody is on their phone a lot, and so the phishing via text has become a big deal. They call that smishing. People will fall for that. They'll get something that says, "You just made a purchase for $500, and if you didn't make this purchase, you've got to do this, or call there." JOHN: Click here or whatever. SHARON: Whatever. Don't click. Don't call. People are not thinking. MARK: I'm hearing we have full service, which I'm not surprised, but I just want to underscore all of this. John, you raised a very, very good point. I'm often writing and lecturing about some similar things. Regardless of what IT does, we still have to deal with the reality of the human factor. You can't patch that. You can't. We have to do some training here. Is that something you guys do as well? Are there any training resources available for solo small firms? SHARON: The best training resource I know of is somebody who is not in your own company, in your own law firm. It's somebody from the outside who carries a bigger bat and has a reputation. That's why we started out long ago doing cybersecurity awareness training for law firm employees, and we do it remotely, which of course people have gotten used to that now. We have a PowerPoint, and we talk through the PowerPoint. We only charge $500 for an hour. Trust me, they can't absorb more than one hour, because this stuff is complicated, and they have to pay attention. An hour is about right. You might want to do it more than once a year. You might want to do it twice a year. At $500, most law firms can afford that, even the solos and the small firms, because it's a whole firm price. We're there for an hour, and we answer questions as we go along, but we can show them the phishing emails and all the stuff. We talk about social engineering, and all the stupid stuff they do, like sharing and reusing passwords. JOHN: The latest attacks. SHARON: The latest attacks. We [inaudible 00:19:30] the latest information. Nonetheless, people forget. The stat that's most interesting to me, Mark, is that over 80% of successful attacks involve a human in some way or another. MARK: Right. Good stuff. One of the reasons I really was excited about visiting with the two of you again, is to try to find or create awareness about resources that are out there, because there are so many places where there is, if you will, nothing locally. When you talk about this preventative educational piece, just as an example, at $500 a pop, I sit here and say, as a risk guy, two or three times a year? That's chump change, and absolutely essential to do in my mind, when I compare the potential loss of time, worry, money, data, all kinds of things, if somebody just does something stupid and clicks on the wrong thing, and we get hit with ransomware, and it's all gone, locked up. JOHN: I think the other requirements you're going to have Mark too though, and what we're seeing a lot of, is that the cyberinsurance carriers are now in their renewals and in their applications, they want to know, are you getting training for your employees? SHARON: That's one of the questions, and they don't want to hear no, or they might charge you more, or they might offer you less coverage. We've seen it all. Cyberinsurance is driving the solo and small firms crazy. MARK: Here's one as a side comment following up on that, please folks, if you're filling out these applications, don't lie. If you say you're doing something, and a policy is issued based on those representations, it's just the same as malpractice insurance or anything else. If it turns out you aren't having these trainings and you don't do these other things that you say you are doing or have in place, that's going to jeopardize coverage. Just a little side note there, be very careful and honest about answering this. I don't want to keep you too much longer, and I really, really appreciate you taking some time today. Could we close maybe with some thoughts about what are the top two or three things that you think lawyers in this space need to be concerned about, focused on perhaps, and/or a tip or two to address these kinds of things? Just a quick wrap. SHARON: Are you talking about cybersecurity in particular, Mark? MARK: Yes. JOHN: I think Sharon has talked about the things that certainly are really high on my list, and that's the multifactor authentication, the EDR systems, endpoint detection response. SHARON: And an incident response plan, which only 36% of attorneys have an incident response plan, and it is so critical, because if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That's an old chestnut of a line, but it's really true. You have got to have a plan, and you probably need somebody to consult with you a little bit, because there's no absolute template out there that fits everybody. You can start with one, but you really need to have somebody who knows what they're doing help you out with developing a plan. It's not all that hard, it's just that people don't do it. And then, if they do do it, then they leave it to molder, and of course nothing stays the same in this world, especially cybersecurity. In a year, if you haven't looked at it and done anything with it, some portion of it is probably quite obsolete. JOHN: But I think the critical foundation for that whole thing, before you even get down to saying, how am I going to respond, what does my IRP look like, is inventorying your assets and your data. If you don't know you have it, you can't protect it. MARK: That is an excellent point. Yes. That's absolutely an excellent point. I appreciate your time here. Before we wrap it up, I do want to give you a moment to share. If any of our listeners have a need and desire to reach out to you to discuss the kinds of things that you can help them out with, how can they get a hold of you guys? SHARON: Our phone number is 703-359-0700, and our website is senseient.com, or of course you could search Sensei Enterprises. We have all different kinds of folks in the office, and we'll funnel you to the right people. Very happy to do that, and always happy to have a no-cost consult if people have some questions they'd like to ask. We do a lot of that at the beginning, and then it turns out that they do in fact have a need, which is harmonious for us both. But if it doesn't work out, at least we've tried to help. And so, we would encourage that, Mark. I hope that's helpful. MARK: Yes, it is very much so. To those of you listening, I hope you found something of value out of today's podcast. My intent again today, I just am trying to find solutions. I get so many calls of, who do I turn to? This is a rough space at times, and lawyers just feel left out and unsure who to reach to. I assure you, these two and the business they have, these are good folk, and it's a great business. I would not hesitate reaching out at any time. John, Sharon, thank you very much for joining me today. John, good fishing, and hope you guys take care of those grandkids and kids. Boy, that's a busy, crazy life, but I'm sure it's exciting. That's just awesome. I'll let you get back to it, guys. Thank you for listening. Bye-bye, all. SHARON: Thank you very much. JOHN: Bye-bye. MARK: Bye-bye.

This episode of the In The Club Podcast by Club Colors features your host, John Morris, Executive Director of Brand. There are 4 main keys that drive your brand and nurture your team culture. John discusses starting an online company brand store, implementing repeatable promotional programs, offering multi-level welcome kits, and choosing premium over volume. He provides tangible examples of how each key excites company employees and transforms them into brand champions.  HIGHLIGHTSThe 4 keys that drive your brand: An elite online brand storeRepeatable promotional branded apparel programsMulti-level welcome kitsGo premium over volume QUOTESUse premium apparel to incentivize stellar performance - John: "For those that meet or exceed standards of performance, you don't always have to give them a bonus check. Give them a credit to the company online store. Two things happen. Number one, they feel great because they're rewarded with something—and everybody likes an incentive—but what's the dual impact? The dual impact is they're going to go on your online store, purchase something with your logo on it, and become a walking billboard for your organization."Branded merch makes you extraordinary at the ordinary - John: "It's not going to save the world. It's not going to cure cancer. And, quite honestly, it's not going to increase your sales by 50%. It's not going to help your people close better. It's not going to drive your leads by 800% in a year. It's not happening. What it will do though, it will help you to become extraordinary at the ordinary as it relates to branding."Leaders must grow the company by creating brand champions - John: "If you're a CMO, executive director of HR, executive VP of HR, tip of spear executive, chief revenue officer, executive vice president of sales, whatever, you're trying to really take the company on the next level and build value in the organization. A great way to build value in your organization is to have the people really, really be advocates and evangelists, brand champions, for the organization." In the Club by Club Colors is sponsored by our proud partner:Maple Ridge Farms | mapleridge.com

Transcript Podcast Introduction Today is  Epistles Sunday James 4-5. I'm calling today's episode “Golden Nuggets.”  Comments on Today’s Bible Translation Bible translation used in today’s episode: Ch. 1 GW Support This a value for value podcast. There are no advertisers because advertising=censorship. If you enjoy the Lifespring Family Audio Bible, decide how much value it... The post 2 John: It's Ok To Say No first appeared on Lifespring! Media.

This episode of the In The Club Podcast by Club Colors features your host, John Morris, Executive Director of Brand. He shares the exciting updates happening right now at Club Colors, including diversification of products and services and a renewed focus on creating an inspiring brand experience for clients.John also discusses their 3 pillars of brand success: client intimacy, operational excellence, and product leadership, and how these 3 elements create an unmatched customer experience that speaks for itself. Find out your company's own pillars that make you stand out from the crowd! HIGHLIGHTSClub Colors can now accommodate 3x volume with the biggest lease in Chicagoland3 pillars of brand success: Client intimacy, operational excellence, product leadership QUOTESClub Colors creates an inspiring brand experience John: "It's not just about the price, it's not just about the product, but it's about creating the right reaction with clients."Practicing operational excellence to exceed expectations John: "We have to pursue perfection on behalf of our clients to make sure that we meet their brand standards, we meet their brand guidelines, we police their brand, we decorate at a level that exceeds their expectations."Club Colors as a product leader helps with branding John: "By becoming product leaders, becoming true brand advisors, we can make certain that we are guiding and influencing the decision-makers at brands to make the best decisions to maximize their internal, external, and personal branding." Connect with John and Club Colors by clicking the links below:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/%E2%98%98%EF%B8%8Fjohn-morris%E2%98%98%EF%B8%8F-96148716/Website: https://www.clubcolors.com/ In the Club by Club Colors is sponsored by our proud partner:Maple Ridge Farms | mapleridge.com

What you'll learn in this episode: Why every art student should have business classes as part of their curriculum How the American mythology of the starving artist is more harmful than helpful Why it's important to expand a creative business beyond just making How polymer clay went from craft supply to respected artistic medium Tips for entering jewelry and art exhibitions  About John Rose and Corliss Rose 2Roses is a collaboration of t Corliss Rose and John Lemieux Rose. The studio, located in Southern California, is focused on producing one-of-a-kind and limited-edition adornment and objects d'art, and is well known for its use of a wide range of highly unorthodox materials. The studio output is eclectic by design and often blended with an irreverent sense of humor. 2Roses designs are sold in 42 countries worldwide and are exhibited in major art institutions in the US, Europe, and China. Photos Available on TheJewelryJourney.com Additional Resources: Website Etsy Transcript: For John and Corliss Rose, business and artistic expression don't have to be in conflict. Entering the art world through apprenticeships, they learned early on that with a little business sense, they didn't need to be starving artists. Now as the collaborators behind the design studio 2Roses (one of several creative businesses they share), John and Corliss produce one-of-a-kind art jewelry made of polymer clay, computer chips, and other odd material. They joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about their efforts to get business classes included in art school curriculum; why polymer clay jewelry has grown in popularity; and how they balance business with their artistic vision. Read the episode transcript here.    Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is the second part of a two-part episode. Today, my guests are designers John and Corliss of the eclectic design firm 2Roses. Located in Southern California, they sell worldwide. 2Roses in an award-winning design recognized for their use of unusual materials. Welcome back.    When you look at these things, do you have visions right away? Does something jump out at you that says, “Oh, there's a pair of earrings,” or “There's a pendant. I can do something with this”?    John: Sometimes.    Corliss: Sometimes. With the way I personally work, I have a table full of all sorts of things. I'll take a certain amount of time and just look and pick and group and put this away. It's almost like a cat playing with a couple of little toys. You put it over here and you scoot it over there. Then we'll have dialogue about it, and we'll talk about things. Then it'll rest, and it'll come back. Sometimes the decision is immediate; sometimes it takes a little while. It's just the process. It's the same thing when John works. He's a little more direct than I am. I've learned from a couple of other peers that it's very helpful to have many, many things at the table at the time, because you can look at a variety of things and the mind just flows. It's like automatic writing. But John's very direct. He'll go through a process and then say, “Come here. Let's talk about this,” and we'll talk about something.   Sharon: What's the division of responsibility between the two of you? Does one person do the back-office stuff and the other person makes? Do both of you do the creative aspect? How does that work?   John: We're very collaborative. It's a very fluid process. I always refer it to as improvisational jewelry design. We don't set out with a plan to make a series of things, although themes and series have evolved organically through the process. We see these themes—moral themes, humor, political or social statements—just keep cropping up on their own to our particular point of view. But within the jewelry production design, it's really—   Corliss: It's fluid. Depending on the task that needs to be done, some things I will be better at soldering. There are some things that John does. He does a lot of—   John: Welding.   Corliss: Machinery and welding and things of that sort, engraving. That's where things maybe get a little compartmentalized. Not in the creative thinking process, but in the actual, physical production stages. “O.K., I'll take this stage. You do that better, so you do that and we'll talk about it.” That's what happens.   John: We don't want to get too far away from our business sides, like, “O.K., who's more efficient for the task?” But we do have certain divisions of tasks. On the back end, when it comes to the hard business stuff, Corliss tends to be the accountant. I'm the sales and marketing guy. She does all the web work. I do social media. I'll do photography and she'll do inventory. We do have certain tasks we fall into, but it tends to be more business operations than the creative work or production.   Sharon: Interesting. How many other businesses do you have? John, you have a multi-media empire it seems. What do you have here?   John: The main corporation is called Mindsparq. That's really an umbrella corporation. Underneath that, we have a variety of different business entities. There's the marketing company. There's 2Roses Jewelry. We have an education arm, a publishing arm, photography. I do a lot of restoration work.   Sharon: Restoration? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.   John: Of jewelry antiquities.    Sharon: Oh, really. Interesting, O.K.    John: We're working with a lot of museums, auction houses, things like that, movie studios. That's turned into a whole thing unto itself. Then we do light manufacturing. There are a lot of different business entities. Some are intertwined with the jewelry; some are not.   Sharon: Corliss, you're doing the teaching on the educational videos or the educational aspect. How does that work?   Corliss: Yes, a lot more video now. I found that Zoom has opened up a whole wonderful world for expanding education, where I used to have to rely on being someplace in person, and the students had to rely on airfare, hotel rooms, that sort of thing. I have a very international following with online instruction in all different variants. It has proven to be not only lucrative, but very rewarding personally. John has been very instrumental in helping get the lighting and the connectivity set up and teaching me about different cameras and how to adjust them while I'm doing my instruction, that sort of thing. It's worked out very well.   John: I keep her on her marks.    Corliss: Oh, yes.   Sharon: It's so meticulous when you're trying to demonstrate something like jewelry making, metalsmithing, how to weld something, how to incorporate metal into this or that, because you're so close. It's like a cooking class in a sense. How do you show how to do it?   John: Yeah. Actually, the things we were doing with cooking demonstrations when Corliss was more involved in that helped us a lot when we started doing jewelry demonstrations and workshops. Basically, the videography and the whole setup is very, very similar.    Sharon: So, you were ready when Covid came around. When everybody was on lockdown, you were already up and running.   John: We were.   Corliss: Yeah.   John: Actually, what you're seeing behind us, we're in our broadcast studio now.   Corliss: With some of the equipment behind us.    John: Yeah, when Covid hit, we made the investment to set up a complete streaming broadcast studio because it was obvious that this was going to be the transitional network. It wasn't going to just be for the next six months.    Corliss: We've always been very pragmatic about trends and where everything is going. During the pandemic, we saw Zoom as something that was going to outlast the pandemic. It was going to cause a shift in education and a lot of other things, business meetings. So, we took the time to invest in learning the software and watching all the how-to videos and getting questions answered. We wanted to be able to hit the ground running with a certain amount of knowledge and have things work correctly, have that person's first impression be a good one, whether it was a student or I was doing a board meeting or whatever. We just saw that as the right thing to do.   Sharon: Do you see trends both with jewelry and with this? Zoom will continue, but do you see more polymer clay? Maybe it's me. It seems to have subsided. Maybe it was a big thing when it came out. I heard more about it, and now it's—not run of the mill; that's too much—but it's more widespread, so people aren't talking about it as much. What are your thoughts about that?   Corliss: You're talking about the polymer clay, correct?   Sharon: Yes.   Corliss: There have been advancements made within the community, but I actually see the most innovative work coming out of Eastern Europe. There's a design aesthetic there that is very traditional and very guild-oriented. There's a different appreciation of fine art over there, where in America this is a craft media; it's something to introduce young children to. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it's just a different perspective on it.    John: I was just going to add that what you see in Europe is more professional artists.   Corliss: Yes.   John: Mature, professional studio practices incorporating very sophisticated raw material. Right now, the more innovative stuff is coming out of Europe. How that plays out, that's not to say there's nobody in America. I mean, obviously there are.   Corliss: There's more happening now. We're seeing more and more of our contemporaries getting into the large exhibitions, the large shows with very wonderful work. It's very satisfying to see that, but it's been a slow growth, mainly because this particular medium was introduced as something crafty and not something to really be explored as an art form. That came from within when polymer clay was first manufactured from a very small group of people who saw the potential of it. They set the foundation of pursuing polymer clay as an art form. It's taken a while to grow, but it is starting to get a little bit sweet now.   John: And that's not really different from other mediums. Look at it: it's just a medium. If you look at the introduction of acrylic paints into the painting world, it took 75 years for those to eclipse other things. Polymers are on that path.    Corliss: They were first invented, I think, in the 70s and 80s as a—   John: Well, they were invented of course.   Corliss: Yes, that is absolutely correct, but as an art supply. They were made in the 1980s. That's when they started being discovered.   John: Do you know how polymer clay was invented? Do you know the story?   Sharon: No.   John: It was invented by the Nazis.   Sharon: Was it? For what?    John: During World War II, for the leadup to World War II, it was an industrial material that was invented as a substitute for hard-to-find steel and things like that. It was used in manufacturing leading up to the war. It's an incredibly versatile and really durable product, and it's very plastic. It can be used for a lot of different things. So consequently, it was sitting on the shelf for many years, many decades, until around the 1980s when somebody somewhere discovered this stuff and said, “Hey, look at this. We can throw some color into it and do all sorts of crazy, artistic stuff with it.” That's where it took off.   Corliss: That was the start of Premo, and now you have countless brands of polymer clay that are being manufactured. Just about every country on earth has its own brand of polymer clay, including Russia and Japan. Polymer clay is very big in Japan.   Sharon: That's interesting.    John: Including us. We have it as well.    Sharon: You are early adopters, then. It sounds like very early adopters.   Corliss: Back in that particular time, the internet was just getting started. There wasn't a big outlet like there is today with social media for polymer clay enthusiasts or groups or fellow artists to get together. I learned everything online. There were one or two websites that acted as portals with links to different tutorials and other web pages with information about products, manufacturers' pages, that sort of thing. I learned polymer clay online.   Sharon: Wow, online.   John: There were no instructions.   Corliss: No, there was nothing.   Sharon: Wow! I give you a lot of credit, the stick-to-itiveness and determination to say, “I'm going to learn this.” Polymer clay, I took a class decades ago where they used some—is it baked?   Corliss: Yes, we prefer to call it cured.   Sharon: Cured, O.K.    Corliss: And some of the terminology that's been developed recently is to give a little more sophistication to the product so it isn't so crafty. So yes, it's cured. Most of it is cured around 275º Fahrenheit. There are brands that are cured a little bit higher and maybe slightly lower, but a lot of the brands are interchangeable, intermixable. You can have polymer clay look like a gemstone. You can have it look like old, weathered wood. It's very adaptable. It's a perfect mimic. It supplants the use of other materials in different jewelry compositions. It's a very interesting material to work with.    Sharon: It sounds like it.   Corliss: You can paint it. You can rough it up. You can use alcohol on it, just about anything.   Sharon: Recently you mentioned competition. You enter your work into competitions—I call them competitions. I don't know what you call them, where they give an award for best—   John: Yeah, exhibitions. That's something we do. It's part of the promotion of your work. It's about getting your name and your work out there in front of as large an audience as possible. It's one way to approach it. We've used that in a lot of cases, and these things are building blocks to how you build a sustainable practice. Being in an exhibition—for example, we've been in the Beijing Biennial for three years running. We've won numerous prizes for that, and we're representing the United States. We're one of six artists that have been chosen to represent the U.S. and one of the only clay artists outside the U.K. That'll pick up a lot of opportunities for us and allow us to make connections in China, particularly within the arts community in China. Just that one event has caromed off into, I don't how many years now it's been playing out, and it has continued to provide opportunities for us to do different things. So, yeah, they can be very, very useful, but you have to also recognize that the opportunities are there only if you recognize them and then take action.   Sharon: Would you recommend it to people in earlier stages of their careers, just for validation, to be able to say, “I won this”? Or would you say don't do it until you're ready? What's your advice?   John: I don't think we advocate one way or another. All I can speak to is this is what works for us. Results can vary. It depends on how you approach it. We had a discussion about this in one of the arts groups recently, and I was surprised that one of themes that emerged out of that was a lot of artists' discomfort with competition. If that's the case, then that's probably not going to be good advice for you. When you do exhibitions and competitions, you'd better have a thick skin because you need to be able to say, “It's not personal;  they didn't like my jewelry.”   Corliss: I think one area where we have been a bit instrumental is with younger people who want to enter that first competition for the first time. It's more of an instructional thing. The technology no longer does slides; you do images. It's little things like making sure your images all have pretty much the same backdrop, that they're easy for the jury to look at. Out of the 12 or 15 things that we made, we pick the five or three strongest that we feel would be looked at in front of the jury. When you fill out your questionnaire, if it's anything you have to hand write, please print legibly. It's surprising how careless people can be. Just things like that. Don't be disappointed if you don't get in. You go through the experience of having a binder three inches thick of, “Thank you very much, but no thank you,” before someone comes in saying, “Congratulations.” Then that new little binder starts growing and growing and growing. It's more of a basic instruction, hand-holding, a little bit of counseling and, “Here, go on your way. Just give it a try.”   John: For a long time, we confronted ourselves with that kind of thing. We have what we call the “wall of shame.” We post all our rejection letters and say, “O.K., we really suck. Look at this is a massive array of rejection letters.” But I think most professional artists that do exhibitions and things will tell you it's a numbers game. You just keep submitting and eventually you'll get into some, and you won't get into others; that's all there is to it.    Sharon: Yeah, I can see how thick skin comes in handy.   Corliss: I was just going to say I run to the bathroom and cry.    Sharon: No, but you have to have thick skin to do what you do in terms of putting your work out there. You see people looking at it. They walk to the next table. They walk to the next booth. I was talking to a jeweler about this the other day. It's challenging right there.   Corliss: I go back again to the early days of the apprenticeship. Speaking for myself, I had some hard masters. I remember one class—I will never forget this guy, Salvatore Solomon. He was a fabulous artist, a very good, well-respected artist, and I'm in class and he comes around. He didn't say a word, just took the piece I was working on, ripped it up. He said, “Start over.” Oh no, that didn't sit well with me, but that was his technique. He was very hard on his students, but he was teaching you a number of things. One, thick skin. Two, perseverance. The experience I came out of that with has benefitted me for the rest of my life. Now, I understand what he was trying to do.   Sharon: That would be hard thing to go through. John and Corliss, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today. I give you a lot of credit for everything you've built, not just the jewelry, but everything around it. Thank you so much for taking the time.   John: Sharon, thank you very much for the opportunity and for taking the time to do this. It's been a real honor and a pleasure.   Corliss: Yes, it's been nice. Thank you so much.   Thank you again for listening. Please leave us a rating and review so we can help others start their own jewelry journey.

What you'll learn in this episode: Why every art student should have business classes as part of their curriculum How the American mythology of the starving artist is more harmful than helpful Why it's important to expand a creative business beyond just making How polymer clay went from craft supply to respected artistic medium Tips for entering jewelry and art exhibitions  About John Rose and Corliss Rose 2Roses is a collaboration of t Corliss Rose and John Lemieux Rose. The studio, located in Southern California, is focused on producing one-of-a-kind and limited-edition adornment and objects d'art, and is well known for its use of a wide range of highly unorthodox materials. The studio output is eclectic by design and often blended with an irreverent sense of humor. 2Roses designs are sold in 42 countries worldwide and are exhibited in major art institutions in the US, Europe, and China. Photos Available on TheJewelryJourney.com Additional Resources: Website Etsy Transcript: For John and Corliss Rose, business and artistic expression don't have to be in conflict. Entering the art world through apprenticeships, they learned early on that with a little business sense, they didn't need to be starving artists. Now as the collaborators behind the design studio 2Roses (one of several creative businesses they share), John and Corliss produce one-of-a-kind art jewelry made of polymer clay, computer chips, and other odd material. They joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about their efforts to get business classes included in art school curriculum; why polymer clay jewelry has grown in popularity; and how they balance business with their artistic vision. Read the episode transcript here.    Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is a two-part Jewelry Journey Podcast. Please make sure you subscribe so you can hear part two as soon as it comes out later this week.    Today my guests are designers John and Corliss Rose of the eclectic design firm 2Roses, located in Southern California. They sell worldwide. 2Roses is an award-winning design firm recognized for their use of unusual materials. Today we'll hear more about their jewelry journey. Corliss and John, welcome to the program.   John: Thank you. It's a delight to be here. Thank you very much.   Sharon: So glad to have you.  Tell us about your jewelry journey. Were you designers first? How did that work?   John: Actually, we both started rather early in life. Corliss started as an apprentice in her father's floral store when she was 10, and I was apprenticed into design and graphic arts at age 12. We both came up in the old-school apprentice system and were working professionally by our early teen. It wasn't until later, in our late teens, that we both started professional or, I should say, a traditional academic trend. So, we've always been in the arts, both of us, very early.   Sharon: Were you both attracted to jewelry early as part of this? Where did that come in?   Corliss: We met at art school, and our backgrounds and our career focus on developing a creative career were almost identical, so we hit it off right from the get-go. For the first 10 years of our relationship, we focused on our own individual creative paths, but we kept intersecting with each other. Eventually we made the decision to work together full time collaboratively for a creative endeavor. Jewelry, at that moment in time, was the highlight of where we wanted to focus our energies.   Sharon: Is that when you met, when you were both part of the apprenticeship, or when you were in college? Where did you meet?   Corliss: We met in art school in Chicago.    John: Prior to that, we had quite a bit of time to develop different practices and careers. So, we met midway, I suppose, in our journey.   Sharon: When you say you were apprenticed, was the idea that you would learn how to be a designer, how to be a florist, and that's what you were going to do?    Corliss: At that time, I was being groomed to take over my father's business. I learned not only the design aspect, but at a very early age, I learned cost accounting. I was learning the business aspect of it. I was pretty much indoctrinated from the very beginning that you're going to be an artist, but you're not going to be a starving artist. You need to make a profit out of this so you can flourish. Later on in my career, I had one gallery owner tell me that the work was wonderful, but price it this way because it's one thing to make your bread; it's another thing to put butter on it. So, it was something that I had gotten all along.   Sharon: Wow! Most people don't get that so early, so that's great.   John: All of the apprenticeships I did, it was all about how this is a business first, and we do creative things like manufacturing a product. So by the time we hit formal arts school, when we first met, we very quickly realized that we had a mutual experience of understanding of the art world and our career path. That's what was a very strong attraction; that we both looked at this as a business career. This isn't about abstract ideas of, “Let's be creative,” and all the mythologies that artists are inculcated with. We didn't seem to have that kind of thinking.   Sharon: Were you ahead of your peers in that respect? Were you ahead of your peers because you recognized the business aspect?   John: Oh my god, yes. Yeah, it was really like that. By the time we hit college, most of our peers were just starting out. They were just starting to learn their career paths and trying to figure out what they were doing. We already had several businesses going. For us, the academic training was more of a cherry on the cake and polishing skills. By that time, we were working professionals and had been for quite some time.   Sharon: Wow! Tell us about the jewelry you make. We'll have pictures when we post the podcast, but it's so unusual.   Corliss: We've always been driven by exploration and experimentation with what we call odd media. This is what drew us to art jewelry in the early days. It was like the wild west. Anything went, and we just threw out all the rules of traditional jewelry. Fashion and adornment were being challenged at that time. It was almost like a golden age, where there was a lot of free-flowing ideas, a lot of collaboration with John and me, and a lot of fluid dialogue creatively between the both of us.    John: You asked about jewelry, and one of the things is we didn't start out as jewelers. Both of us came to it through a lot of other mediums. Myself, I started out as a painter, illustrator, furniture maker, gem cutter, sign maker, designer of one thing or another, machinery. Corliss went through all sorts of other endeavors herself.   Corliss: It was basically when we had been together for 10 years, plus doing all of these interesting things, that we made the decision, “Jewelry would be a great direction to go into.” And just to pull the curtain back a little bit and give a peak, I think one of the nicest things that happened to me at that time was that as an anniversary gift, I received lessons for metalsmithing. I learned how to solder, and that was the beginning of it. What I learned, I taught John. We experimented with a lot of different processes and a lot of different materials, and it just started to take off from there.   Sharon: When you say metalsmithing, I would think you would go in the traditional direction, whereas you took the metalsmithing and combined it with polymer clay, it seems, which people don't do. I'm looking at what your website has, and that's unusual. How did you reverse course in a sense?   Corliss: We were very much interested in color. At that time, we were following the traditional path of experimenting with color and its relationship to metals: patinas,P Prismacolor pencils, enamels and things like that. Polymer clay was such a versatile material. It could mimic just about anything. At the time, the product was being developed in Europe, where it was originally manufactured, and there was a small group of people using the product and doing some pretty innovative things with it. I latched onto that train very, very quickly and took myself through the learning curve of how to work with it, and I got involved with that particular community for quite a while to absorb everything I could, like a big, old sponge. To this day, it plays a very vital role in a lot of work we do. Because we have been metalsmiths and I teach, I have been able to actually teach the incorporation of some of the simpler metalsmithing techniques with polymer to people who have only worked with polymer and opened up that door to them. It's been very rewarding in that respect.   John: You made a good observation about that crossover because as Corliss mentions, it's really a two-way street. What we recognized after a while is that introducing polymer clay to the metal world was one side of the sword, and then it was basically introducing metals into the polymer world. Corliss has developed a whole range of courses, workshops, if you will, going in both directions, and that's become a business unto itself.   Sharon: You seem very entrepreneurial. You seem to go on and on.   Corliss: As John would say, there are many paths to the artist's income.   John: Yeah, entrepreneurialism is really baked into the DNA. I have to go back to the apprenticeships that we both did that gave us a foundation in—I always express it as art as a business and business as an art.   Corliss: It was a work ethic, too.   John: Yeah. So, we tend to always look at what the business opportunities are, how to make money doing this. That's always an issue for anybody in the arts, and that's also part of what we have advocated for for the last 40 years. I have worked with the California University system for decades trying to introduce a business curriculum into the arts, and it's taken 40 years to actually get that message across. It's only been in the last 10 years that we've started getting any kind of acceptance. We've developed many programs for various universities to teach the business side of art, and it's been an obstacle course to get that through. It runs counter—or at least it used to run much more counter to the academic approach to teaching arts, which focuses more on technique than actually earning a living.    Corliss: I've had quite a few experiences with individuals who were poised for graduation in the next six months or so. We would have conversations about, “I don't know what I'm going to do next. I'm going to graduate, but I don't know how to start a business. I was never taught how to make this a practice.” That's where everything started. It started by recognizing that there is a need for it within the education system. It led to developing more and more sophisticated ways of instructing people and getting them a little more prepared for what comes after graduation.   John: The thing we found, though, is that this is a uniquely American perspective. We've developed programs for Canada, for Mexico, South America, and they embraced them. To them it's a no-brainer. It's only America where we've encountered any resistance to it.   Sharon: Interesting. Why do you think that is?   John: I think a lot of it is the mythology of art. I want to be specific about this. We are focusing on metals programs and jewelry design programs for this kind of thing. When I was involved in SNAG, we got into this quite in-depth. One of the biggest impediments is that the instructor basically had never operated a business himself, so to them, they were being asked to teach something they had no experience in. Basically, they got their master's degree, and they went from being students to teachers. That's it. The idea that there was another world out there, they would say, “Yeah, that's great. That would be wonderful, but that's not something I have any experience with.”    Sharon: That's interesting, the idea that art should be pure and sell itself.    John: That's one of the mythologies, so Puritan. It's your labor, I guess. One of the things that occurs to me: many people in the arts define themselves by what they do with their hands, and we have never done that. We conceive the opportunities of who we are by what we do with our minds and how we harness our creativity and create opportunities for ourselves to express that creativity. Jewelry is just one of those things. We have a long history in developing businesses, which goes back to the apprenticeships. From our perspective, it's all creative endeavor.   Corliss: I was a pastry chef.   Sharon: Wow!    John: A television pastry chef, no less   Corliss: Yes.   John: And she basically made formulations for a lot of very famous restaurants and product lines that you would know of.   Corliss: Making the croissants for Marie Callender's. Looked up the recipe for that.   Sharon: Wow!    John: That's Marie right there.    Sharon: How did all this meld into jewelry? I know you through Art Jewelry Forum. I know you do art jewelry, but how did everything you're talking about meld, at one point, into art jewelry? I know you do a lot of other different things, but in terms of the product, let's say.   John: We were both active artists in various spheres. One of the things we were doing a lot was running mining and prospecting operations. We were accumulating massive amounts of gem material, and it came to the point where we had to make a decision of what the hell we were going to do with all this stuff. That's when we came upon jewelry. We could either sell the material wholesale, which we were doing, but really the profitability in jewelry is that we had to finish the faceted stone and polish the rough material. You get the material by the pound, but you sell it by the carat.   Corliss: It was lapidary skills that was the predecessor to this. We were making cabochons. John was faceting and we were also carving. We were carving a lot of natural materials, like bone and wood. The jewelry morphed from that, and it started selling. I was actually schlepping things in a big case, and we found that our work was being very well received. It grew and built from that. Soon enough, we were incorporating precious metal into our pieces.   John: We started doing more of what I would call conventional jewelry, and we had quite a success doing that. Early on, we got contracts with Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom and some larger chains, and very quickly we found out that doing that kind of work is not what we wanted to do.   Corliss: Yes, multiples.   John: Like doing 5,000 of something. You can make money, but the toll that takes on your body—I know a lot of people that do that, and all of them have wrist problems. It leads to health problems. So, that kind of jewelry was when we were getting started and taking off.    When we discovered art jewelry, we lost our minds. It was the wild west. It was all of our art training, all of the things we thought of ourselves as, what we wanted to do in terms of unfettered creativity and experimentation, pushing the boundaries and the edge. That's what was happening in art jewelry. So, we said, “Yeah, that's where we want to go. If we're going to do jewelry, that's the kind of stuff we're going to do.” That's basically how we backed into this world.   Corliss: That's how it opened us up to a lot of different materials. We were in the frame of mind of purposely going out and looking for materials in a lot of different places, everything from upcycling to computer boards and things of that sort, a whole variety of things. We had friends who would tease us and bring us little offerings we could use in the studio and comment, “You two can make something out of anything.” We took that as a wonderful compliment and put ourselves in a position to receive a lot of very interesting material we could use.   John: Well, we had good circumstances and still do because of all these other businesses we were involved with. We had connections within the military, NASA, foreign governments, lights and heavy manufacturing, the medical industry. We were getting access to this insane array of stuff and materials. I've got stuff from someone's space capsule, a jet fighter, fossils of every kind, medical devices you wouldn't normally get your hands on. All of this became fodder for “Let's make jewelry out of it.” One example: I have what we call the world's most expensive pair of earrings. One of my contacts ran a medical manufacturing business, and they spent something like $35 million developing these little—   Corliss: Chips.   John: Yeah, for CAT scanners, and they failed. They didn't work as intended. So we stocked six of these prototypes, which literally cost $35 million, and they were like, “Well, we can't use them. Here, make some jewelry out of them,” which we did. We made earrings out of them, and I love that particular piece. It has a story because they went from being extravagantly expensive to being completely worthless, and now they're a pair of earrings. Somebody put some sort of value on it, I guess.   Sharon: It sounds like people who know you just ship you boxes and bones and screws and whatever they have.   John: We receive regular offerings from friends, which is a delight; it really is. Over the years, we've developed a solid foundation of collectors. We get a steady stream of commissions, and it's very typical to hear, “I have this thing. Can it be—” I mean, we've gotten everything from antiquities—   Corliss: We have Roman coins and special pottery shards.   John: And crazy stuff that people say. “Here, use this as the starting point and make me something.” We actually got a guy's pacemaker one time. “I've had this inside of me for the last six years, and now I'm going to wear it on the outside.”    Sharon: That's an interesting idea.   John: It was quite an interesting piece. 

On this episode of the AI for Sales Podcast, Chad is joined by John Nord, Head of Sales of Craftable. Everybody in the hospitality and restaurant industry has to count, cost, and sell ingredients and products in the most efficient ways possible to maximize profit.John talks about how automation and AI play a role in connecting what businesses buy with what they sell to break down profitability more accurately. He shares his thoughts on AI augmenting many of the processes, especially in the hospitality and restaurant industries. He also discusses some of the newer technologies that focus on AI in the sales motion. HIGHLIGHTSWhere does AI play a role in solving customer's problemsThe value that their software providesDoes AI replace or augmentAdvancements for AI in the sales motion  QUOTESJohn: "Our analytics product is essentially advanced recording for operators, recreating spreadsheets and just data ultimately being fed into it whether it's from the food or beverage side, a combination of both, or just purely from the point of sale."John: "There are certain aspects of a client moving from one tier to another where AI is probably a better fit. Some of the most successful companies that we've seen over the last 10 to 20 years have been exiting out of the SaaS boom right now and going into in-app transactions or in-app upgrades."John: "It's cool to actually see the team learn through a piece of technology that can analyze a whole day of conversations and kind of compile it where we can have a quick 20 to 30-minute conversation and better understand that there's a lot of information but let's just try a piece of it." Learn more about John and connect with him in the links below:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnord/Website: https://craftable.com/ 

What you'll learn in this episode:   Why we often have more information about gold than any other decorative object The difference between material culture and material studies, and how these fields shaped the study of art and jewelry What John wants visitors to take away from “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory and Power” Why history is much more global than we may think What it really means to curate, and why it's an essential job   About John Stuart Gordon   John Stuart Gordon is the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. He grew up among the redwoods of Northern California before venturing East and receiving a B.A. from Vassar College, an M.A. from the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, and a PH.D. from Boston University. He works on all aspects of American design and has written on glass, American modernism, studio ceramics, and postmodernism. His exhibition projects have explored postwar American architecture, turned wood, and industrial design. In addition, he supervises the Furniture Study, the Gallery's expansive study collection of American furniture and wooden objects. Additional Resources: Yale University Art Gallery Website Yale University Art Gallery Instagram John Stuart Gordon Instagram Photos available on TheJewelryJourney.com   Transcript:   Perhaps more than any other metal or gem, gold brings out strong reactions in people (and has for all of recorded history). That's what curator John Stuart Gordon wanted to explore with “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power,” a featured exhibition now on view at the Yale University Art Gallery. He joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about why people have always been enchanted by gold; what he discovered while creating the exhibit; and why curation is more that just selecting a group of objects. Read the episode transcript here.  Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is the second part of a two-part episode. Today, my guest is John Stuart Gordon, the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. Welcome back.    I'm curious; I know you recently had a group from Christie's studying jewelry that came to visit your exhibit. I'm curious if they asked different questions, or if there's something that stood out in what they were asking that might have been different from a group studying something else.    John: Every group is different. I love them all, and I learn so much from taking groups of visitors through because you start looking at objects through their lens. Recently a group of makers came through and, wow, that was a wonderful experience, because I could make a reference to, “Oh, look at the decoration on this,” and then, “Is it chaste or is it gadroon?” “What kind of anvil are they working with?” We have to answer these questions. There are some things I can't answer but a maker can identify easily, so I'm learning things.    Maybe someone who's a collector or an appraiser is thinking about objects in a very different way, wanting to know how rare it is, if there are only a handful, where they are, how many are still in private collections, what's in the museum collection. One of my favorite tours was with a small group of young children who had a completely different set of preconceived notions. I had to explain what an 18th century whistle and bells would have been used for because they'd never seen one before. I had to talk about what kinds of child's toys they remembered from when they were kids, trying to relate. Every group has a slightly different lens, and you can never anticipate the questions they're going to ask.   Sharon: Yes, they're coming at you from the weirdest angles. In putting this together, what surprised you most about gold in America? What surprised you most about putting this exhibit together? What made you say, “Gosh, I never knew that,” or “I never thought about that”? There's a lot, but what's the overriding question, let's say.    John: It's such a nerdy answer, and I apologize for being such a nerd, but what surprised me the most was an archival discovery. Mind you, this all takes place against the background of lockdown and having way too much time on our hands and looking for distractions. I pulled a historical newspaper database that the library subscribes to, and I typed in the word “gold” and pushed enter. There were about three million responses that came back, and I just started reading my way through. Not all of them were interesting, but I was struck by the frequency with which people were discussing gold, and I was struck by the global knowledge at a very early period. I would find articles written in the 1720s in colonial Boston talking about the Spanish fleets leaving Havana Harbor with amounts of silver and gold onboard. They would describe how much gold, how much silver, was it coins, was it bars, was it unrefined. There was a newspaper report coming out of New York in the 1750s talking about a new gold strike at a mine in Central Europe. That was truly unexpected: to realize that this material was of such importance that people were talking about it on a daily basis, and that it was newsworthy on this global scale. People weren't just talking about what was going on in colonial Boston or colonial Philadelphia. They were talking about what was going on in Prussia and Bogota. I think we often think of early history as very insular, and we think of our present day as global. History has always been global, and it was a lovely reminder of how global our culture always has been.   Sharon: That's interesting, especially talking about global. I just reread Hamilton. They're talking about Jefferson and Madison and everybody going over to France and coming back. I think about the boats, and I think, “Oh, my god.” I think of everybody as staying in place. You couldn't get me on one of those boats. What a voyage. But that was global. Everybody was communicating with everybody else. So, yes, it always has been that way, but it's very surprising, the movement that has been there for so long. We could go on and on about that.    Let me ask you this: Yale Art Gallery just received a donation from Susan Grant Lewin of modern jewelry, art jewelry, on the cutting edge. At the museum and gallery, is the emphasis more on jewelry as part of material culture and decorative arts? Not every museum or art gallery would have been open to it. What's the philosophy there?   John: Yes, we just received a gift of about two dozen pieces of contemporary jewelry from Susan Grant Lewin, who is a collector and scholar. We've also received a gift from the Enamel Arts Foundation, which is a foundation that collects and promotes enamel objects and jewelry. We have a long history of collecting jewelry, and it's based on historic collections. The core of the American decorative arts collection is the Mabel Brady Garvan Collection. It started coming to the art gallery in 1930. It's this rather storied collection. It covers everything you can imagine: furniture, glass, ceramics, textiles, you name it.    It was assembled by a man named Francis P. Garvan, who was a Yalee. He graduated in the late 19th century and he gave it in honor of his wife. His main love, after his wife and his family, was silver, and the collection at Yale is probably the most important collection of early American silver in any museum. Silversmiths and goldsmiths, the names are interchangeable, and it is mostly men at that period who were making silver objects and gold objects. They're also making jewelry. As you take the story forward, it doesn't change a lot. People who are trained as metalsmiths often will make holloware and/or jewelry. The fields are very closely allied, and the techniques are very closely allied. So for us, it makes complete sense to have this very important historical collection of metalwork go all the way up to the present.   We have a lot of 20th century jewelry, now 21st century jewelry. We also have contemporary holloware because we like being able to tell a story in a very long arc. The way someone like Paul Revere is thinking about making an object and thinking about marketing himself is related to how someone graduating from SUNY New Paltz or RISD are thinking about how to make an object and how to market themselves. Often it's the same material, the same hammers, the same anvils. So, it's nice to show those continuities and then to bring in how every generation treats this material slightly differently. They have their own ideas and their own technologies.    So, the Susan Grant Lewis Collection is a very experimental work. She has said she doesn't like stones, so you're not going to see a lot of gem setting and a lot of diamonds and rubies set in gold. There's nothing wrong with them, but she's more interested in people who are more out there, thinking about how you turn 3D printing into art or how you use found materials and construct narratives and make things that are more unexpected.   Sharon: I just want to interrupt you a minute.  SUNY New Paltz is the New York State University at New Paltz?   John: State University of New York at New Paltz. Sorry, I gave you the shorthand.   Sharon: I know RISD is the Rhode Island Institute—   John: We're going to have to submit an index on how to understand all my acronyms. Yes, RISD is the Rhode Island School of Design. There are a handful of institutions that have really strong jewelry departments and really strong metalworking departments, among them Rhode Island School of Design, State University of New York at New Paltz. You can add Cranbrook, which is outside of Detroit. There's a whole group of them that are producing wonderful things.   Sharon: So, you studied decorative arts. What was your master's in?   John: I was an art historian. I was very lucky in college to have a professor who believed in material culture, and I asked, “Do I have to write about paintings?” and she said, “No, you don't.” I was very lucky to find that in college. Then I went to the Bard Graduate Center in New York. It was a much longer title, the Graduate Center for Material Culture and Design. It changes its name every two years. My master's was in kind of a history of design and material culture. Then to get a Ph.D., there are very few programs that allow people to focus on material culture. Luckily, there are more with every passing year. When I was going to school, Yale is one that's always focused on decorative arts and material culture. Boston University, their American studies program is a historically strong program that allows you to look at anything in the world as long as you can justify it. So, that's where I went.   Sharon: Was jewelry like, “Oh yeah, and there's jewelry also,” or was jewelry part of the story, part of the material culture, the material objects that you might look at? Was it part of any of this?   John: It was. I am at core a metals person. My master's thesis was written on the 1939 New York World's Fair, looking at one pavilion where Tiffany, Cartier and a few others had their big exhibition of silver, gold and, of course, jewelry. My entry into it was silver, but I had to learn all the jewelry as well. So, jewelry has always been part of my intellectual DNA, but it didn't really flourish until I got to Yale, and that would be because of my colleague, Patricia Kane. She has a deep knowledge and interest in jewelry. We have done a few jewelry exhibitions in the past, and she has seen it as part of the collection that should grow. I arrived at Yale as a scrappy, young curator seeing what was going on in the landscape, and the jewelry is amazing. One of my first conferences I went to was a craft conference. I met jewelers and metalsmiths, and it's a really approachable group. They're very friendly. They like talking about their ideas. They like talking about their work, which is really rewarding.   Sharon: What were your ideas when you started as a curator? Did you have the idea, “Oh, I'd love to do exhibition work”? Curate has become such a word today. Everybody is curating something.   John: Yes, my head is in my hands right now. One of my pet peeves is that people talk about curating their lunches. The word curate actually means to care for, so I think about the religious role of a curate. It's the same role. Our job is really to care for collections. If you care for your lunch, you can curate it, but if you're just selecting it, please use a different word.    That idea of caring for objects, that's what really excited me as a curator; the idea that so much of what we do is getting to know a collection, to research it, to make sure it's being treated well, that things are stable when they go on loan, that when things need treatment, you work with a conservator or a scientist. I was really excited by that.    Over the course of my career, I've become much broader in my thinking. When you come out of graduate school, you've spent years focusing down deeper and deeper on one small, little subject. I was still very focused on a very narrow subject when I became a curator. That was early 20th century design. I love it dearly, but over the years my blinders have come off. I love American modernism. I also love 17th century metalwork. I love 21st century glass. You realize you love everything in the world around you.   Sharon: Would you say your definition of curate is still to care for? I'm thinking about when I polish my silver. I guess it's part of curating in a sense, taking care of things.    John: Polishing your silver or your jewelry is actually one of the best ways to get to know it. We're one of the few collections where it's the curators who polish the silver. We hold onto that task because we don't do it very often, because it's better to leave things unpolished if you don't have to. But when it comes time to polish something, the opportunity to pick something up, to turn it over, to feel the weight of it, to look closely at the marks and the details, that's a really special thing, to get to know your objects so well by doing it. I give a hearty endorsement of silver polishing. It's also a great emotional therapy if you've had a tough day. But to your question, I even more strongly believe that the role of a curator is someone to care for their collections.   Sharon: I really like that. It gives me a different perspective.   John: Yeah, because what we're doing is not just physical care; it's emotional care. In today's culture we talk so much about self-care and these kinds of tropes, but that's a lot of what we're doing. We're understanding history through our objects. We're understanding the objects better to have something preserved for posterity, so it can tell future generations stories.   Sharon: That's interesting. John, thank you so much. By the way, the exhibit ends in July, but the Susan Grant Lewin Collection is open through September. You'll be busy, it sounds like.   John: “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power” closes July 10. The Susan Grant Lewin Collection of American Jewelry will be up through the fall. If you miss both of those or you're in a place where you can't get to New Haven, our collections are all online. All you have to do is go to our website, and you can just click through and spend a day looking at objects from the comfort of your living room.   Sharon: Yes, and very nice photos. As I said, I was looking at them before we started. I was very interested. What was that used for? Where did it come from? I guess being in Los Angeles, I'll have to do that. I'll be doing that from my living room. John, thank you so much. This is very, very interesting. I learned a lot and you have given me a lot to think about, so thank you so much.   John: Thank you for having me.   Thank you again for listening. Please leave us a rating and review so we can help others start their own jewelry journey.

What you'll learn in this episode: Why we often have more information about gold than any other decorative object The difference between material culture and material studies, and how these fields shaped the study of art and jewelry What John wants visitors to take away from “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory and Power” Why history is much more global than we may think What it really means to curate, and why it's an essential job   About John Stuart Gordon   John Stuart Gordon is the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. He grew up among the redwoods of Northern California before venturing East and receiving a B.A. from Vassar College, an M.A. from the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, and a PH.D. from Boston University. He works on all aspects of American design and has written on glass, American modernism, studio ceramics, and postmodernism. His exhibition projects have explored postwar American architecture, turned wood, and industrial design. In addition, he supervises the Furniture Study, the Gallery's expansive study collection of American furniture and wooden objects. Additional Resources: Yale University Art Gallery Website Yale University Art Gallery Instagram John Stuart Gordon Instagram Photos available on TheJewelryJourney.com   Transcript:   Perhaps more than any other metal or gem, gold brings out strong reactions in people (and has for all of recorded history). That's what curator John Stuart Gordon wanted to explore with “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power,” a featured exhibition now on view at the Yale University Art Gallery. He joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about why people have always been enchanted by gold; what he discovered while creating the exhibit; and why curation is more that just selecting a group of objects. Read the episode transcript here.  Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is a two-part Jewelry Journey Podcast. Please make sure you subscribe so you can hear part two as soon as it comes out later this week.    Today, my guest is John Stuart Gordon, the Benjamin Attmore Hewitt Curator of American Decorative Arts at the Yale University Art Gallery. The Yale University Museum and Gallery is the oldest art museum in the western hemisphere associated with the university. John is going to be telling us today about one of the gallery's current feature exhibitions, “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power.” We'll hear all about the exhibit and John's journey today. John, welcome to the program.   John: Thank you. Thank you for having me. I apologize; my endowed title is a total mouthful.   Sharon: No, no. Who is Benjamin Attmore Hewitt?   John: Benjamin Attmore Hewitt was a clinical psychologist who helped bring the idea of statistical study to psychology, and he was also a collector. He was an avid collector of federal furniture, and he was associated with the art gallery. He, in the early 80s, was a guest curator on an exhibit on card tables that we did called “The Work of Many Hands.” In the incredibly small world department, I'm joining you from my living room, where if I turn and look out my window, I'm looking at the house that he used to live in across the street from me.   Sharon: Wow! Was that an old house that was built on federal plans or is it a modern house, the one he built or that that he has?   John: It is a beautiful, Georgian-style house. It's quite gorgeous, and you can imagine it was perfect for his federal period collection.   Sharon: It sounds gorgeous.   John: It's just one of those small-world things, right? I ended up moving across the street from person who endowed my job.   Sharon: Sounds gorgeous. So, tell us about your career path. Tell us how you ended up at the Yale University Art Gallery.   John: Yes, it was a dream job for me. I grew up in San Francisco. I grew up in a household that loved art, so I'm one of those lucky people that grew up from childhood thinking art isn't scary; art isn't strange; art is something to be enjoyed. I always knew I wanted to be in the art world somehow. I went to Vassar College in Poughkeepsie for the history of art program. When I graduated, I didn't know what I wanted to do, but my first job was at Christie's auction house, and that was an amazing experience. You see everything when you work in an auction house. It's the fabulous things that get the headlines in the paper, but it's everything else that gives you an education. That was an incredible training for my eye.    I'm a slow thinker. I like taking my time. I like spending time with objects. The constant hustle and bustle of the auction world was a little too much for me, so I went to grad school. I went to the Bard Graduate Center in New York and got my master's. Then I had an internship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. One of my colleagues there, the curator Amelia Peck, once said that if you would like a job at one of the great collections, you need a Ph.D. So, I said, “O.K.,” and I went to Boston University for a Ph.D. in American Studies.    The whole time I was thinking, “I want to get a Ph.D. so I can get a job at a place like the Yale University Art Gallery,” because its collection is legendary. It was the collection that so many of my professors used when they were teaching their survey courses. It was a collection I knew, and it was my aspirational job. One day while I was studying for my orals, my college professor called me and said, “A job has opened up at the Yale University Art Gallery. You need to apply for it.” Being a grad student, I was like, “Oh, I'm a little busy right now. Maybe next week,” and she was like, “John, don't be stupid. These jobs don't come up very often. You really need to apply.” I was very lucky. I got the job. That was 15 years ago, and I have been there ever since.   The collection is extraordinary. The museum was founded in 1832. It was one of the oldest museums in the country. Its American decorative arts collection formed very early on but really got going in 1930, so it's also a very old collection. In the 1970s, one of the former curators, Charles Montgomery, felt it needed to go clear up to the present. So, our collection really spans centuries, and with that kind of span, you never get tired.    Sharon: It does. I was looking at your exhibit of gold online and I'm going, “Oh my god, this is going back.” I was looking at the gold collar you have and I thought, “This is really old.” What was that? The 3rd or 5th century or something like that? I can't even remember.   John: The museum's collections are encyclopedic. It goes from ancient Babylon up to the present day. Luckily, my slice of it is just the American, which is enough of a handful. There are two of us in our department, Patricia Kane and myself, and between the two of us, we need to cover pre-contact to the present in every medium. So, it's enough to make your head spin some days.   Sharon: What is it about the decorative arts that attracted you as opposed to another area of history that you could also go into museums for?   John: That's a great question. I loved the idea that decorative arts are like a lens into our world. Everything we make and own is a lens, but decorative arts have a way of telling you stories about the way we used the technology that went into making them, what a particular culture or a time period found important, as you make objects to fulfill needs and to fulfill aspirations. I loved the idea that you could take anything from a necklace or a teapot or a chair, and if you look at it enough ways, you could know a lot about the goals and dreams and technologies and resources of a given time period. I loved that idea, reverse-engineering culture through objects.   Sharon: That's interesting, yes. How did the gold exhibit come about? Was that something you and Patricia had been thinking about, or was that a directive from on high? How did that come about?   John: The gold exhibition came about because of the pandemic, to be completely honest. Two years ago, the museum closed down, like many museums did at the beginning of the pandemic, and our exhibition calendar went out the window. Loans were cancelled, exhibitions were cancelled, and the director of the Yale University Art Gallery, Stephanie Wiles, put out a call for in-house exhibitions, exhibitions we could work on in our spare time. We didn't know how long this was going to last. We thought we were going be home for a few weeks, and she wanted exhibitions that would be easy to slot into the calendar when the museum reopened and that would really shine a light on our collections, because those would be easier for the curators to research.    When I arrived at Yale in 2006, sitting on the shelf above my desk was a slim, little catalogue to an exhibition called “American Gold” that was done in 1963. I loved that little catalogue. I read it many times. I loved the material. Much of the material was drawn from Yale's collections because Yale has one of the strongest collections of early American gold. I thought, “Someday, maybe I'll revisit this.” It seemed amazing that no one had revisited this idea of gold since the 1960s because so much had changed about we think about the world, how we think about objects, what kind of theoretical models we use, and I thought I would do that exhibition at some point in the distant future. Then when our director said, “Are there are any ideas out there?” I said, “O.K., maybe I could do this now.” I suggested it, and it was a real treat. So, it was something that grew out of a spontaneous need but became a wonderful, wonderful research project.   Sharon: So, the objects for the most part are taken from your collection as opposed to loans, O.K. Tell us about the exhibit “Gold in America: Artistry, Memory, Power.” Tell us more about the whole exhibit. What do you want people to learn from it?   John: I was fascinated by the idea that gold is so compelling and so entrancing. There is something about this material that has been fascinating to humans for millennia. You think about the Egyptian pharaohs with their coffins covered in gold. Gold is the reason for so many wars and invasions, and all this is a sign of status. What is it about this material that has so much weight? I started talking to many of my colleagues, asking about the gold in their department, and we realized we could do a global show. It could be gigantic. It started getting away from me, and I realized, “O.K., let's just focus on one very narrow portion of this global story. We'll just focus on colonial American experience.”    As I started looking at those objects, I was struck by something rather uncanny. In the history of decorative arts, most objects are anonymous. We don't know who made them. We don't know who owned them. We don't know how they traveled through time. With metalwork, we do tend to know a bit more because there are makers' marks. There's a whole history of guild systems that are looking at the purity of metals, and with gold we know even more information. I think probably more than almost any other material, we know who made gold objects and who owned them, and it's because they often are inscribed or engraved somehow, or family histories come down with them. I found that so fascinating. That became the structure for the show, really thinking about these objects that have histories and why they were owned, why they were made, why they were cherished, thinking about this important material and how it intersects with human life over the span of a few centuries. That's what I want visitors to take away.    Most people think—well, we can actually do this right now. Sharon and everyone listening, just to yourself, think of three words that come to mind immediately when I say gold. Free associate. What are those words that come to mind? Sharon, I'm going to put you on the spot. What three words come to mind?   Sharon: It's like a blue elephant. What do I think? Shiny, valuable and decorative. In terms of jewelry, I think decorative. Those are the words that come to mind.   John: Shiny, valuable, decorative. I asked this question of a lot of people. Everyone I met for a while got that question, and value came up a lot. Then there were a lot of judgment terms, things like beauty or tacky. They were either positive or negative terms. People have an emotional, visceral reaction to gold. What I want people who visit the show to do is to move beyond those initial associations. We're drawn to it because it's valuable and we think it's beautiful, or we're skeptical of it because we think it might be gaudy. But I want them to really look at the objects and learn why someone might own something or why someone might want an object made out of this material. It's to move beyond those initial words into words about legacy and heritage or patriotism or pride, to get to that second layer. It's to let people know O.K., I'm going to think twice about what a gold ring might symbolize because I've looked at a gold ring that was all about mourning and commemorating the dead, or I've looked at something like a gold spoon that seemed a little flashy, but we know it was made by a Huguenot craftsman escaping religious persecution in New York, yet it was owned by someone who made their money selling slaves. Ideas of freedom and persecution are wrapped up in this material. There are so many stories that, once you start asking the objects, the stories come back to you in a way that I hope makes people pause when they leave the museum and see something else in their life. “Oh, that's an interesting idea.”   Sharon: I think what strikes me is the fact that when you're talking about gold, artistry, memory and power over the years, the wars that have been fought, I think of the Aztecs and Incas, where it was so cherished. We talked a little about this. Material culture, material studies. You'll have to explain the difference. That sounds like something I didn't grow up hearing. Maybe because you're in that world, it's something you've heard about for a long time. But what is material culture and material studies, and how does it relate to this?   John: That is such a big question. I'll try to do some honor to it. The idea of material culture as an academic field—and I'm sorry; I have to put on my dorky academic for a second—but the idea of material culture really came out in the 1960s and 1970s with this larger idea of a new history, a way of looking at the reinterpretation of historical sources, historical stories, questioning who has the right to tell history. It was a way to get away from just looking at the histories of wars and rulers, documenting dead white men written by more dead white men. Material culture is a way of looking holistically at the objects that are produced by a civilization and thinking about the everyday person or the person not on the throne. What can be learned from the things that are not just the dates of rules and wars? That field really transformed art history, history, American studies, anthropology, archaeology. It opened up various fields of study so that you could write an entire book about the development of the Coke bottle and have a valid historical discussion about everyday objects.    What's been fascinating—I grew up in this world. To me, material culture is my language. I grew up being taught by people who were on the front wave of this, so I'm totally indoctrinated. In recent years, I've seen a subfield emerge just called material studies. It makes chuckle a bit because it's like material culture with the culture taken out, which is probably not true, but it's really just going into the actual “thinginess” of objects: thinking about the marble that a statue was carved from, or thinking about the wood used to make a chair and diving deep into this elemental level of what the material of our world is, where it comes from and what stories it tells.    In terms of gold, your mentioning the Incas is, I think, a rather important reference, because where was the gold coming from? If we take an Inca material studies approach to this, we think about how, for many years, the Mediterranean in Europe, they weren't reusing and melting down and recycling the gold that was coming out of a very limited number of mines. Then suddenly, the Spanish discover or stumble across the New World, and they see these cities with temples filled with gold and palaces filled with gold, and they start looting them. As the conquistadors are conquering Central and South America, they're stripping the gold out, and then that gold is being melted down and being sent back to Europe. What does it mean to have this material that's so inherently fraught with conflict?    What does it mean for a silversmith in Boston in the 18th century? He's sitting on the edge of an empire working a small amount of gold that's incredibly valuable because he has to get it from London. He's aware that the Spanish have all this access to gold through the New World, and it's circulating around him. Then how does all of this change when gold is discovered at Sutter's Mill in California in 1849, and suddenly there's a whole new and incredibly large source of gold? It's augmented by further strikes in Colorado, and the West begins creating more gold. Think about this material, how its rarity is tied to conquest and imperial control.   There are some scientists who have been thinking, “Can we do tests on material to find out if there are little isotopes in the metal that can tell you whether the ring you're wearing today is gold that was from Northern California or from Afghanistan? Can we begin to map out the world and map out trade routes all based on scientific inquiry and matching scientific testing with archival research?” Your very quick dive into material culture versus material studies, it's endlessly fascinating.   Sharon: I know people get their doctorates in material studies around things like that. I should have asked you this at the beginning. Did you consider yourself an artist when you grew up with all this art? Before art history, were you creative? Were your parents in the creative end of the arts or were they teaching?   John: Being an artist was option number one, and I pursued that. Making art was a really important part of my childhood and developing a sense of identity. Then I learned about art history. I just loved art history, and I had to make that decision: would I go to art school or would I go to a liberal arts college? For me, art history won. I loved being able to parse out these stories and to look at objects and paintings and sculptures and think about all the different references. But having that history of making, I think, is very important. I have a lot of empathy for the skill and the creativity that goes into making.

It's a whole other level of “serve and protect” with Special Agent John Fisher as he is welcomed by Mark Ledlow in Round 2 of this 2-part series of the Fearless Mindset podcast. John will be sharing the ins and outs of his protection detail and how he enjoys it and is passionate about it despite the challenges he faces day by day. Tune in today and learn more about John Fisher, only here, in the Fearless Mindset podcast.HIGHLIGHTSAdvice to younger generationsChallenges of the jobAdvance is keyQUOTESJohn: “I can say those that are single, have it better. Because they're at liberty to do a little bit more.”John: “If you are in a relationship or you are married, it has to be an agreement with you and your wife about what it takes to do this particular position.”John: “Advance is paramount is the Bible. And the reason why Grail. And the reason why is because you're not only representing your entity, you're representing that principle.”John: “I sit back at night and I do my own after-action after every night and I try to apply that situation in the private sector and what I could or could not have done, and what I would have would not have available.”John: “It's getting that exposure and really it's being humble enough to sit back and learn and you know, I love and it was a fault of mine, but I tried to help people, but I would help it unsolicited.”John: “Social media is a necessary evil? Unfortunately, in this day and age, I absolutely hate social media. Yeah, I mean, you, you hate it, but you need it. And you kind of has to utilize it. But not too, unfortunately. Yeah, there are good information marks bringing great information out there.”Connect with John and learn more about his work with the link below:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-fisher-14a26124/To hear more episodes of The Fearless Mindset podcast, you can go to https://the-fearless-mindset.simplecast.com/  or listen to major podcasting platforms such as Apple, Google, Spotify, etc. You can also subscribe to the Fearless Mindset YouTube Channel to watch episodes on video.

Today we have John Bolaji, MBA, Master of Engineering candidate at UC Berkeley. Aside from being a Consortium Fellow, he is also Co-President of The Black Business Student Association here at Haas. John comes from a Nigerian family. He is good at Math and Science, and coupled with his passion for science fiction and technology, he went to MIT and studied Mechanical Engineering. However, John wanted to explore other industries other than tech and engineering. He worked as a Consulting Analyst in Accenture and then a Project Manager at McMaster-Carr, where he got to experience real management and leadership experience.In this episode, John shares his reasons for pursuing the new joint master's degree in business and engineering, joining different resources inside and outside of Haas, and taking on leadership roles to promote positive changes in the world, especially for people of color.Episode Quotes:On being exposed to management and leadership experience early in his career"It offered me some really interesting and unique leadership opportunities that I was really happy to get and confirmed for me that the leadership and management aspect is where I want to be in terms of my career, in terms of how I'm contributing to the world. I think that's where my natural abilities and skills lie."The role of MLT (Management Leadership for Tomorrow) in his business school application“I definitely have to give a shout out here to MLT. That's another organization that helps prepare black and brown students to transition to business school. What I did was MLT MBA Prep. It's essentially a large group of people kind of going through the MBA application process. So, a lot of people have MBA application consultants. This is like a similar version of that but it's a much larger community and it's focused on uplifting black and brown students and indigenous students. And that was 100% the most impactful part of my preparation and application process. MLT was really the first intro to this world and I can't thank them enough for how the preparation process, the coaches that they give you, access to the networking with schools that they give you, is all very impactful. And on top of all of that, it just creates such an amazing community of people who are going through the same process at the same time.”On choosing business schools“Every business school admissions process is different for everybody. And I think, more so than any other professional school, there is a strong emphasis on prestige, rank, business school, name brand, and all those different things, and that definitely influenced my thinking a lot. But I'd say my advice to people is that everyone's business school application journey will be unique. The prestige and name brand definitely have some effect in certain areas, but you can think of other things like the school, culture, fits, geographic location, student size; all those different things will have a much larger impact on your experience.”Why he joined different programs inside and outside of Haas“I did this intentionally, but I really overloaded myself. I was trying to hone in my focus and my prioritization. I was like, I'm going to sample everything and put as much on my plate as I can. And then I'm going to see what sticks essentially. Because you only have so much time, and at the end of the day, you end up prioritizing the things that you find important, and the things that you don't find important will fall off the wayside.”A piece of advice from John“It's going to be tough, but don't be afraid to push your boundaries and get outside your comfort zone. I feel like that's a very cliche piece of advice, but the way I'd frame it is, it's a lot easier to get comfortable and stay inside your comfort zone without even realizing that you're in your comfort zone. You might think you are pushing your boundaries when in reality, you're just slightly turning to the left or slightly turning to the right. And when I say completely change everything that you thought your boundary was, if you can go to the opposite end of the spectrum and test it out to see how far you can go and how far you think the spectrum even is, you might realize there's way more in the middle than you thought or it's not as far as you thought that this thing that you thought was super radical really is not that radical. And maybe you can even go further and get closer to finding something even better for you than you thought could be possible on this side of whatever spectrum you're thinking of.”Show Links:LinkedInManagement Leadership for Tomorrow - MBA Prep ProgramBlack Business Student AssociationHaas Consortium FellowshipUC Berkeley's MBA/MEng programHaas Tech ClubSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/onehaas/donations

John Burns co-authored Big Shifts Ahead: Demographic Clarity for Businesses, a book written to help make demographic trends easier to understand, quantify, and anticipate. Before founding John Burns Real Estate Consulting in 2001, John worked for 10 years at KPMG Peat Marwick—2 as a CPA and 8 in their Real Estate Consulting practice. John Burns founded the company to help business executives make informed housing industry investment decisions. The company's research subscribers receive the most accurate analysis possible to inform their macro investment decisions, the company's consulting clients receive specific property and portfolio investment advice designed to maximize profits. Gary Beasley is CEO and Co-Founder of Roofstock, the leading online marketplace for buying, selling and owning single-family rental investment homes. Recognized as a leader in the future of real estate, Roofstock was featured on Forbes' 2019 Fintech 50 list. Gary has spent most of his career building businesses in the real estate, hospitality and tech sectors. After earning his BA in economics from Northwestern, Gary ventured west to earn his MBA from Stanford, where he caught the entrepreneurial bug and still serves as a regular guest lecturer. Immediately before starting Roofstock, Gary led one of the largest single-family rental platforms in the U.S. through its IPO as co-CEO of Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, now part of Colony Starwood Homes. In this episode, we discuss the current state of the real estate market and the economy more broadly. Gary and John share their thoughts on what has been happening year over year in the housing market; what 40-year highs of inflation, rising interest rates, and geopolitical unrest mean for real estate investors; and highlight some of the risks that investors are faced with today.    Episode Links: https://www.realestateconsulting.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/john-burns-real-estate-consulting/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-beasley-956647/ https://www.roofstock.com/ --- Transcript Before we jump into the episode, here's a quick disclaimer about our content. The Remote Real Estate Investor podcast is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as investment advice. The views, opinions and strategies of both the hosts and the guests are their own and should not be considered as guidance from Roofstock. Make sure to always run your own numbers, make your own independent decisions and seek investment advice from licensed professionals.   Michael: Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of the Remote Real Estate Investor. I'm Michael Albaum and today with me I have two very heavy hitters in the real estate space. John Burns, CEO of John Burn's real estate consulting, and Gary Beasley, co-founder and CEO of Roofstock. So without further ado, let's jump into hearing their thoughts and opinions around what's been going on in today's real estate market.   John Burns and Gary Beasley so happy and excited to have you both back on the podcast. Thank you for taking the time to hang out with me today.   John: You bet.   Gary: Hey, Michael, great to see you.   Michael: So I of course, know a little bit about both of your backgrounds and who you are. But for those of our listeners that might not be familiar with who you both are, if you could give us a quick two minute, two second intro of who you are, where you come from, and what it is you're doing in real estate and John, if you want to go ahead and start, that'd be great.   John: Okay, I'm the CEO of John Burn's real estate consulting, I founded it back in 2001, to figure out what's going on the housing market for a lot of people, mostly big companies and that's what we do.   Michael: Love it and Gary?   Gary: Sure, I am Gary Beasley, I'm the co-founder and CEO of Roofstock and we've been at this for about six and a half years now. Building out really the complete ecosystem for single family rental investors and I've known John now, I think, John, since about when you started the company, it feels like we've known each other for a while we when we I think when we met we we both had dark hair. Remember that?   John: It's been a very long time.   Michael: That's great. Well, I wanted to chat with you both around a lot of things that I've been getting questions about, and I'm sure that the two of you have as well and that's just kind of what's been going on with the housing, market and economy over the last couple years since the pandemic started. So I would love to just jump into things get into the meat and potatoes and get both of your thoughts on really year over year, what's been going on at the macro level in the housing market.   John: Well, I guess I go first, if you let me go back maybe three years, so but pre the pandemic because I think it's relevant. The housing market was extremely hot. We have a different view than a lot of people on on how undersupplied the market was, we don't think it was I just applied at all actually until about 2019, then it started to be under supplied and with interest rates. So damn low everywhere in the world, people had figured out that single family rental housing was a great investment just to get some yield and we were seeing a lot of investors come in to the market, then COVID hit so you know investors are very volatile. They stopped for a few months, and then they came back very strong and probably the biggest difference in the last year is the fear of inflation has piled in on top of the need for yield and it's double the reason to invest in rental homes. So we're seeing money from all over the world focused on housing in America.   Gary: I would agree that clearly the residential market has been booming and I would say despite a number of factors that you would have thought might have slowed it down. We went through a global pandemic, and housing chugged right on through and we could talk later perhaps about why some of those things happen. But the reality is really kind of across price points and geographies. You've seen robust demand for housing and if you look at price increases year over year, John, I know you track the SFR space really closely and it kind of mirrors what's been going on even if you look at owner occupied sales, but home prices have been going up call it 15 plus percent, year over year, pretty consistently. That's a big number, when you think about historically, it's been about 4%. If you go back 40 years on a compounded basis. That's how it had been up until fairly recently.   So a lot of you know in rents have lagged that a bit but you've seen high single digit to low double digit rent increases as well in a lot of these markets and so in oftentimes, I feel rents are a little bit of a lagging metric because especially a lot of the mom and pop owners don't raise rents every year don't raise them, really even to market so we're seeing a lot of homes come to market today that have rents that are 10 or 20%, below where the markets are today. So, so you've got just a lot of demand for the product and, you know, we're at an interesting time now, and I'm sure we'll talk about, you know, some of the current dynamics in the market, interest rates have moved up quite a bit in the last, you know, month to six weeks, we've got a lot of interesting things going on geopolitically, we're not yet seeing that impact, demand or pricing. One would think that those factors should that have an impact over time. But for now, I think just the supply demand dynamics very, very much in the favor of demand over supply.   Michael: Okay. Interesting and I'm curious to get both of your opinions on this, I mean, we are at such a unique time, kind of in history and curious to know your guys's thoughts on do you think that real estate investing fundamentals have it all shifted because of where we find ourselves today? John, I'll let you go first on this one.   John: I don't know if the fundamentals have shifted, because I've seen this game before. But what is different is that by investing in rental homes has become a very easy thing to do, thanks to Roofstock and others. I mean, prior to 2012, you couldn't get on your computer and figure out exactly how much a home was worth and how much it could rent it for in about five minutes, you can now there's all sorts of vehicles where you can invest in funds and completely passively invest in housing and I think it's become an asset class that really was very illiquid, and pretty lumpy before that now has become more liquid and I think that is a permanent change in the market, doesn't mean things can't go down. But I think it's actually had a permanent positive increase permanently on home prices.   Gary: I would agree with John, I don't think the fundamentals, I don't think the fundamentals of real estate investing have changed. But I would say perhaps some of our maybe preconceptions or assumptions about how it would perform is I kind of mentioned earlier, or maybe a little bit challenged, and that there's just so much demand for the product and in the pandemic. You know, it was almost counterintuitive that home prices would go up and rents would go up. But when you think about the fact that people really demanded shelter, safe shelter, and there was an exodus of from a lot of the coastal cities to secondary and tertiary markets drove a lot of that demand. So but I think still, the fundamentals of real estate are very much about location and supply and demand. Those things, those fundamentals I think are true. I think one of the things we're seeing though is perhaps there are different things get that can drive, demand and pricing for different types of real estate assets. So if you look at for example, housing, and industrial, which have done quite well, throughout the throughout the pandemic and the aftermath, and then you had some real estate asset classes that really suffered, because you look at office and retail and and REIT in hotels, things like that. So it's it. I think real estate broadly can be influenced by different things. The fundamentals of each have to be examined, but certainly for housing. It's been it's been very strong, despite what might you might have considered some some headwinds.   Michael: Okay, interesting and you both touched on inflation in the conversation thus far and so I'm curious to know, how much of the demand do you think is being really driven by inflation? And do you think that folks are right or wrong to be considering real estate investing as a hedge or as a defense against inflation?   John: People's expenses are going up and your investments should beat inflation and nothing in the treasury market does it in fact, nothing in the high yield bond market pretty much does it now too, I don't know how you earn returns. But this was going on pre COVID and that's why I mean that there was a surge of money coming into the market pre COVID. We at our conference at the end of 2019, we had Bruce flat, the CEO of Brookfield asset management, who at the time manage more than $500 billion was fundraising all over the world and he literally said that this is the most significant thing he seen in the last 15 years, is everything that produces cash is gonna go up in value, and that was pre COVID and so that this this has just got even more accelerated because inflation wasn't even part of the equation. Now if you're now if you need to beat inflation in your return and inflation is right now the latest print is seven 8% where you're going to get seven or 8%? And so housing, if wages go up which they are, you can raise rents, if the cost of the structure going up is going up, which it definitely is, every single component in the house has gone up, their cost of construction has gone up at least 10% in the last year. That's an inflation hedge too, because nobody's gonna replicate what you own for the same amount of money. It's very much an inflation hedge.   Gary: Everything points toward continued inflation, in my view in the housing market. Now, that being said, interest rates going up, you would think should moderate that. That's an offsetting influence, but the cost of the inputs, the labor and the materials, clearly upward pressure, everything that's going on in the world, disrupting the global supply chain, and the cost of transport and all that putting upward pressure, Pete wage inflation to keep people in their seats, and to hire people. That's allowing people to have more and more money to spend on housing that's also pulling pricing up. It's hard to see how much that's going to, in an absolute basis reduce the price of housing, I do think that we will see some moderating of the rate of inflation of homes over the upcoming quarters and years, I think that 15% is gonna come down naturally. But I don't see, I don't see it coming down to the point where it actually reverses and you see absolute price declines, like we saw in that really unusual time in the Great Recession, which was, arguably a once in a generation adjustment to housing prices there. I think, a lot of fundamental differences between what we're seeing today and and what we saw back then this is not a credit bubble.   John: So I agree with everything you said until this is not a credit bubble. I mean, maybe you meant a credit bubble on housing, because I agree with you.   Gary: That's what I mean, I mean that there's a lot of embedded equity, as opposed to people, you know, having 3% or less equity in their homes, they've got 20 plus percent equity. Now, you can talk about the I wasn't speaking to the global kind of free money, credit bubble, but…   John: Well, that's a I think there's a credit bubble going on in the world on pretty much everything else. I mean, Dodd Frank, made it impossible to do it on a mortgage going through a bank. But people are lending against crypto, it's the highest borrowing and stock prices ever. We're seeing deals even in single family rental that well, I would say are being done with pretty much no due diligence, because it's a mess piece. So there's a little bit of equity in front of me and what I worry about is a recession caused by a credit bubble outside of the housing market, which impacts housing demand and you know, that's when housing was struggle, but I think everything else in the world would struggle at the same time, maybe even more, so. So I'm not, I'm not saying get into stocks or bonds, because it's just that, that that's what caused the great financial crisis, and it was housing last time. I think it's other stuff this time. We were seeing flip flipper loans are being securitized on Wall Street. I mean, there's, you know, I see that in my business, one of my clients is lending against crypto balances. You know, I think another famous person just came out and said, if you've got if you can put up crypto, I'll give you the value of your crypto to make a down payment for a house, that there's some different stuff going on. That concerns me but not on buying rental homes or Roofstock more concerning on the economy.   Michael: Okay and so curious, John, just, you know, personal thoughts. What's a good defense?   John: You know, normally it would be cash, but holding on to cash it goes down 7% in a year. So I think Howard Marks who's a famous investors calls this an everything bubble. We're in an everything bubble right now and how do you invest in an everything bubble? I have no idea. That's why I run it…   Gary: Maybe maybe negative interest rate German bonds don't seem so crazy.   Michael: Yeah.   John: Well, no, exactly. So, so if you're, if you know, in the coming world, losing 3% is probably a good deal relative to everybody else if that's if that's how that plays out.   Michael: All right, well, keep both you keeping your eyes and ears peeled and let me know if you hear something great for hedge against the everything bubble, I'd appreciate it.   John: Well, it's it's still specific. I mean, that that's what the smart people aren't doing. They're just, they aren't going to do just a sector. They're looking at everything carefully and in this industry, if you don't have a lot of competition going around where you're making investments, that's a far safer place to be if there's some great job growth in your conference. In a job growth because those employers are profitable and making money and going to be there all the time, that's a different story than the job growth being in a sector that's currently losing money, for example.   Michael: That makes total sense, that makes total sense. I'm curious if we could take a step back and understanding that neither of you work for the Federal Reserve, but I'm curious to know your thoughts and kind of get some insight into? I mean, you talked about the wage growth going up, and then the cost of goods and services going up? How do we not get into this upward death spiral? And I know, Gary, you mentioned, you know, raising interest rates could curtail that, but it seems like there's just so much money out there how to, how do we kind of ease down from this?   Gary: Yeah, well, I think there's it I don't know, if there's been a tougher, it's never easy being involved with setting Fed policy, but you have a lot of things to balance here. This is a tightrope act. So you want to slow the economy here, enough to curtail inflation, yet, not necessarily throw it into a big recession, you've got a lot of things going on overseas, that should you could argue are already going to cause things maybe to slow a bit because of what's going on over there. So do they need to pump the brakes as much here. So maybe that means that the Fed doesn't raise as aggressively here and what that may mean is, you know, rates grow a little bit more slowly and maybe the economy tends to overheat despite the global weakness. So it's a really, really challenging balancing act, I think that the Fed is under enormous pressure to curtail inflation and so I think, despite that, we'll probably err on the side of pumping the brakes a little bit heavier, even though that may mean we're risking recession. That would be I'd be curious, John, if you have a view. But if I had to, like on the continuum of what they're more worried about right now, normally, they're, you know, I would say that they've been historically more worried about not wanting to put us in the recession. But we've never, in a long time had these sort of inflationary pressures and in particular, where I think people feel it, it seems to be at the gas pump, right? We're always talking about fuel prices people feel that very deeply and there's a lot of political pressure, even though the feds, in theory, a political, political pressures tend to work their way into those decisions.   John: Yeah and my 30 plus years of paying attention to this, I've never seen the Fed more politically tied than they are right now. They frankly, they seem to me to be puppets of elected officials. I mean, the fact that Powell had to announce for months and months and months, they were going to raise rates, but never raised them once until he got reappointed will tell you something. So I mean, I always honestly think it seems to me like elected officials are calling the shots right now and I think the ultimate fear is a recession or we want to get inflation down, because inflation isn't good either and then, you know, the way I think about this, too, is there's, if you really talk about people's true costs, there's a huge variation in inflation. So if you're a homeowner who owns your car, you know, your your housing costs haven't gone up at all, maybe you got a little bit of a property tax reassessment, you haven't had to go back and purchase a car or release a car and if you are close to work or working from home, frankly, your cost of living might be down over the last year or two.   If you're somebody who's commuting to work, Rance had to you know, really your lease was up had to get another car. I mean, your cost of living can be up to 15 to 20% and the Fed seems to be focused on those people, rightly or wrongly. But that that's how I'm thinking about this is it's a huge difference in what's actually happening depending on what you are, and then the wage growth. You know, if you're in the hospitality sector, you haven't seen anything. But if you're a construction worker or a truck driver, your wages are up dramatically. So and those are the ones I that we're seeing that are buying homes, renting homes, people that are affluent, able to work from home, hey, I can I can now go out to the suburbs and rent a really nice house and my housing costs are gonna go down, not up because my boss says I only need to come into work twice a week. So it's it's very complicated story on picture painting here, but that's exactly I think how the Fed is looking at it.   Gary: Yeah. And then you also have, obviously those who own assets versus not I mean, this is similar to what John was talking about, but not only can you have the cost of living impacted a lot, a lot less if you own your assets. But in fact, John, you may know this figure I read it, I think last week, some fairly sizable percentage of the US population made more off of their homes this year than they did from their jobs. The power, the power in an inflationary environment of owning assets, it's kind of hard to overstate it. That I think one of the reasons, I think we're seeing more and more kind of first timers wanting to own their first investment property, even if they aren't in a position to own the home they're living in right now. Going to some of these lower price markets, and getting on the ownership bandwagon and just writing that asset appreciation. It's, you know, it's a powerful force.   Michael: Yeah, absolutely.   John: I think you were going to say, it's a powerful drug.   Gary: Well, some people do become addicted to it…   John: We're starting to see that. So people are taking the $200,000 in price appreciation of their house with a refi out of their investment, and then using it to buy three or four more homes, right, that that's what's going on right now. So it is it is addictive.   Michael: Yeah. That makes total sense.   Gary: Yeah. Well, it's been it's been a, a tried and true, a tried and true way for real estate investors to make money, right is to buy that first property, refinance it, take that money, buy more properties and build. But I think, John, to your point, what's happening is, a lot of people are doing that with their primary home equity to get started, as opposed to being more of the intentional investor who just started to do that, I think more and more people are doing it with, you know, equity in their homes, which I think in many ways makes a lot of sense from a diversification standpoint, rather than having so much of your wealth, personally tied up in a single property address, where you happen to live, where you're really subject to the vagaries of your local real estate market, local job market, all that kind of stuff, because that's where you tend to work to diversify into other markets and other assets, I think does make a lot of sense.   Michael: John, would you agree?   John: Yeah, no, diversification makes a lot of sense. I just, I also think it makes a lot of sense to watch how much leverage you've got and to make sure you've got the cash flow, you know, just in case something bad goes wrong. And I think people that are investing like that, and doing exactly what you're saying, are going to be great. But last time, what we saw was, people just were ignoring that and then you lose your job, and then you lose your tenant, and you're your host. So you got you got to be careful here and I think the more I'm a generalized a little bit here, but the more mature people that have seen this before doing that, and I'm sensing the younger people only think home prices only go up and I are more willing to take more risk than I would recommend.   Michael: John, kind of to that point. I'm curious to get both your guys' thoughts if someone is taking out equity their home, because interest rates are so low, and they've seen the value go through the roof and they're going to go buy investment properties. What's the harm? What's the risk there? I mean, and how does someone know if they are over leveraged? If their cash flow is covering their mortgage payments? I mean, if the value dips, nothing really changes for them from a payment standpoint. So how should people think be thinking about being over leveraged or how much risk is too much?   John: I mean, that's a very personal decision for folks. You know, confidence in your employment situation is probably the most important thing and depends on what you do.   Gary: Yeah, I think, Michael, I mean, to your point, as long as they think it is an important point, in a rental home portfolio. Yeah, even if prices drop of that home and you've got a fixed mortgage, your payments don't change, right and unless rents come down, which they traditionally have not, they tend to be more sticky in single family rentals than say in apartments. We followed a lot of that data over time. So you should be okay. Even if on paper, the value of your home, your rental home has gone down. But I think in the primary residence, which is where John I think was going is if you let's say you have you know, 60% equity in your home and you lever it up to 90 through various means, then all of a sudden, you may be at a point where if you lose your job, and you don't have the reserves, you may be in a little bit of a tougher spot because you don't have that home equity to tap, which historically has just been a really nice thing to have as as a safety net and so when that if that were to happen you might have to sell some of your other properties or you have your equity elsewhere and it's not like you can't necessarily get at it.   But I do think in times where you do have some uncertainty, some global uncertainty and some things like that, having some reserves, make sense, not being over levered, make sense, play the long game, I think that's one of the things that we talk to people a lot about is, this is not a, you know, get rich, quick fix and flip, you know, strategy when you're buying investment properties?   Michael: Are you serious?     Gary: So over the long run, Michael, you're going to do just fine. But you have to be patient. So no, but there's plenty of there's plenty of ways you could make bats to win quickly win or lose quickly. But that's generally not what people are doing with us and I think there's times when people are more risk on is a lot of confidence to maybe lever up and things like that, I think this is a time to be more a little bit more thoughtful about all about leverage ratios and so yes, you give up some levered return, potentially. But if you're in a, I would argue if you're in a place where home prices are going up at such an extraordinary rate, you don't need as much leverage to get a phenomenal return. Even if you're only 50% levered, and your home's going up seven or 8% a year, that asset level, you know, obviously, you're doing much better than that, and the return on equity level, so I would say just don't get greedy. It's a long game and you know, make sure you're, you're around to, you know, fight another day, in case there's any sort of corrections.   Michael: To play the end of the game.   John: I mean, that that's the perfect, that's how I see it, too, is cut the long game. And that's how everybody who's been doing this for decades will all tell you that that's exactly the way to play it. I am I am seeing and hearing and running into 20 somethings who aren't listening to Gary's advice and I have no idea if that's 1% of the market or 40. But they're out there and fortunately, they're not getting loans from banks that 90% LTV, at least that I can find, so that's, that's good.   Gary: I mean, Michael, you talk to a lot of people all the time, what is what is your assessment are people do you think people are thoughtful about this? Do you think that is? Do you agree with John, that people who might not have seen a down cycle might be overly optimistic or do you think that they're better informed?   Michael: Yeah, you know, I think it's really a mix of the two, I think that there are two big camps. One camp says this is going to go on forever and that tends to be the folks that haven't seen a recession before and then there's the folks that say, you know, we're it's got to come down at some point and so let's just kind of see what happens and those tend to be the more seasoned folks. So I'm curious, I'm curious to get your guys's thoughts on for those two camps and someone who's just trying to get started trying to get their foot in the door? How should they be thinking about that, is this something that they can kind of catch on the upswing or is do they really need to be a bit more timid and reserved and say things are maybe a little bit too hot right, now let me let me just take a seat on the sidelines and see how this all plays out?   John: So we've been calling this the high risk high reward the part of the cycle now for 13 months. So I would have told you 13 months ago to be cautious and the person who would have taken a lot of risk what I made far more money than the person who listened to me so but that's how these things play out at the end at the end of the cycle. When you take a lot of risk you should make a lot of reward right? But you know, you also need to know when to take some chips off the table you know, unless you believe we're never going to have a recession again which I don't believe that and then also what Gary said has been very true for single family rental rents. The rents have been very stable over time compared to apartments because there's basically been very little construction of rental homes forever and there's always been a ton of construction in apartments and that's when you get hurt killed is when you know three huge apartment complexes open up down the store down the street totally empty and have to lease up 500 units you're done that even though billed for rent is growing pretty significantly in Phoenix right now it's still a lot smaller level of supply than apartments. So this is a more stable investment than comparative some other rental classes for sure.   Gary: Yeah, it's it's really we like to say it's a lot easier to go up then sideways because if you could you go vertical with apartments and it takes a lot more land and it's typically much more difficult to add the single family rental supply and then over time, you also have more than one on exit on the on the rental homes because you could you could exit to a yield investor or ultimately, an owner occupant. So that's I think one of the things that I've always liked about single family rentals is you've got built in optionality. It's very rare in a real estate investment, to have two very distinct buyer sets on the back end, right. You have an office building, you're going to sell it to an office investor. Same with a hotel, they would, but so this is, you know, I think a unique aspect of single family rentals, which gives, you know, it kind of gives investors a bit of a of a hedge.   Michael: Yeah, that makes total sense. Curious, what do you tell investors who come to you and say, John, Gary, you know, I can't seem to break in, all my offers are getting outbid by all cash offers that are 10 to 15% above asking, I can't go that hi, how can I get my foot in the door? What should I be doing? What tactics should I be using?   John: I mean, I might be the wrong person to ask because my clients tend to be very large companies, and this is for their capital partners, this is less than 10%, or maybe of what they're investing in the spectrum of certainly less than 20%. So they may be all in in this industry. But it's it's not, what you're alluding to, is maybe somebody with 100% of their net worth or 80% of their net worth getting in. That's, I don't advise on that, I mean, people are building rental homes, with the appropriate amount of leverage in good locations. That's where we're coaching people to go, there's also people building rental homes, with a lot of leverage in tertiary locations, right, where there's a lot of other construction going on and that that would be to me a higher risk scenario. I think I think there's room for 100 unit rental community, brand new built in every city in America of size, because you can pull it there's 1000s of people that rent ratty old homes with lousy landlords, and there's a percentage of them that would really love to rent something new. Well, and what's your biggest fear is the tenant that said, they're going to sell the house you live in it, you're gonna have to move out? Well, you know, if you're in a rental community that's owned by a public REIT, they're not selling the house, you know that that fear is gone. They may charge you a little more, because it comes with better service and other things. But I think that's a tremendous long term opportunities to build rental homes.   Michael: Interesting perspective, Gary?   Gary: Yeah, well, I would say, people should do their research, and be patient, be opportunistic, but but not be afraid to act with conviction when they find things that make sense for them and so I think, what we find is, on Roofstock, a lot of times people will come and they will look at properties for months and months and months and talk to people and kind of develop their strategy and eventually, something is going to hit your radar, that's going to check most of the boxes and in this market when that happens, as long as you've done enough work to kind of know this, then be ready to act, you know, I wouldn't recommend somebody come and buy the first home they see because then you're not you just don't have enough data. But when you see where these things are trading and all that, and so that's why I say you know, be disciplined, but also act with conviction, when you find something that does work if you do want to get exposure.   Otherwise, you could sit back and just sort of watch things. But you can also wait a lot of times with stock market, also people want to buy on a dip and just wait, maybe there is a little bit of a correction and that could be a time for people to want to wade back in. The challenge with waiting for a dip is, as John pointed out, there just hasn't been even throughout COVID there's been no dip, it's just, you know, been up into the right and, and so, you know, I don't recommend people just, you just buy because of the momentum, right? You want to, again, you want to feel good about the markets you're buying in and the home that you're buying. But also, it's really hard to time a market. It's just it's almost impossible. So heard that that's why overtime, we recommend people not, you know, even if you're only in a position to buy a home now once but, you know, have a design to own a portfolio of them over time and buy them at different points in the cycle and over time you get that market exposure. It's just, it's hard to time your ins and outs perfectly.   Michael: Yeah, yeah. Okay, cool. Well, I'm curious now to get your guys' thoughts and opinions looking forward, which I know is always a dangerous thing to do, but I'm going to ask you both take out your crystal ball and in talking, John, you mentioned about new newly built homes built to rent communities and so I'm curious to hear your opinions around, if the housing starts that we're seeing, since COVID, are going to have an impact, you know, several years down the road 8-10, you know, 5-10, eight years down the road, kind of like we're seeing now, as a result from the 2008, lack of home starts.   John: Yeah, we've done more research on that than anybody else. There's a couple people with some very simple analysis that says we're short, about five to 6 million homes. I think we're short about 1,000,007, which is still a lot of homes and that's not the same shortage in Buffalo as it is in Dallas. So you know, this is we've got the numbers by market. But at a high level, if we're short, 1,000,007 homes, there's 1,000,007 homes that have brand new homes that have paid for our permit that haven't been finished yet. So we've got all of that under construction and it's taking about nine weeks longer to build a house for the best production builders in the country. So this is taking a very long time, so it's going to be at least a year before we satisfy that, because there will be some growth along the way, too. So I'm not what is different about this cycle is the lack of construction. But what I want to point out is there's this notion that the low level of supply just means that this is almost a sure thing and I think the most important thing for housing has always been job growth always, even rates can go up dramatically. But if everybody's got their job, okay, we're, you know, maybe prices will be flat for a while, but we'll be fine. It's when you see massive job losses that we cycle down hard.   So that's why I was I was bringing up earlier the whole credit cycle issues. You know, know, if we if we knew exactly how much debt every company had in every industry had and how much they could cover their cash flow, I think I'd have more certainty. Some analysis I've seen is there's quite a few publicly traded companies that aren't currently generating enough cash to pay their debt service. That makes me concern they're not in the housing industry. In fact, the homebuilders have never been better capitalized like, they're amazing. They have the lowest debt levels ever and the bonds that oh, yeah, and the bonds they borrowed, they don't mature for like four or five or six years. So I mean, the homebuilt talk about a safe play, in terms of going through the cycle, I think it's the builders. I'm not recommending stocks, because I don't do that for a living, because I think all of this is priced in. But I'm telling you, publicly traded home builders are very, very strong, right now.   Gary: Yeah. You know, it's interesting, because John does such good research. So I have no reason to doubt the million seven. But I have seen, you know, estimates between four and 6 million homes deficit in in. So I don't know what the right number is and I'm sure that the method, there's methodologies that but but it's still, it's a couple of at least a couple million homes. The question is what, you know, what does that mean, going forward? Do we catch up as quickly? Can we catch up in a year or two?   That's, I think, optimistic. I think it'll be interesting to see if we do. One of the things that John mentioned was job growth, and that historically has been a real driver. What I think is so interesting now is jobs are so distributed and because companies are adding jobs doesn't mean the jobs are going to be where the companies are located and that kind of makes everyone's head explode. If you're trying to forecast, what's the impact of job growth, it really comes down, arguably, more to population growth. So local jobs are one thing and some things have to be localized, right? If you're going to work at a hotel, the hotel is in a particular place, if you're going to be a software engineer, working for Apple, you know, maybe you could be anywhere or any of these other places and so it's a it's a different calculus than I think it was 10 years ago of treatment, trying to forecast job growth from companies and then okay, well, people are going to need to live within a 30 minute commute or 45 minute commute it that's all upside down. So I think it does bode well for some of these secondary and tertiary places that have seen disproportionate growth. But then you also have these places like in Austin that continue to explode and arguably housings no longer very affordable but they keep building more houses and people keep buying them and keep renting them and there's plenty of land in a place like Austin and so I think almost looking at where taxes are low, and people can still get relatively affordable housing almost seems to be more powerful than local job growth. But I'd be curious about, you know, John's view of that.     John: No, he's right. There's a there's a large sector of the economy where you can live wherever you want and I mean, we, we've been doing this since before COVID, as I was never, never believed that all the best people to hire on the world, we're always within commuting distance in my office. So we've been hiring in good locations, and but you got to get the right person who can do that and companies have figured that out now. So your it is about a great location, it is about where I can get a lot of house for my money if I'm a tenant, or if I'm a homebuyer or I can pay lower income taxes, or I can have better weather. So it's really the same place as people were moving pre COVID. It's just more people have been given the permission to move. So you're right, the job growth. It's pretty correlated to the metro area. But I would say the more outlying areas should see more price appreciation, and they are seeing more price appreciation right now, because more people are being allowed to go there.   Michael: Okay.   Gary: Yeah and it's almost interesting. It's a little bit like the job, the jobs are almost coming with the people. So you think of a place like Boise, Idaho, where people move there not for jobs, necessarily, but because they could bring their jobs with them and they all had all this embedded equity in their homes for more expensive markets. So now you have all these people moving into a market like Boise, and you get incredible growth in the prices of homes in Boise. But now people are working from Boise. So are those jobs created in Boise are there jobs that now exist in Boise because it was inexpensive, and it's a nice place to live?   Michael: Yeah, I was gonna ask John, does that make it kind of squirrely to nail down that job growth metric because of this new phenomenon?   John: Yes and no, so there's two jobs surveys, there's one where they call the employer and said, how many people did you hire this month? That's based on where the employer is located. But the one where they call people and say, are you looking for work or not, that comes up with the unemployment number, that's where you live. So actually, we always triangulate the two. So I'll use my example. So we perfect example, I'm in Orange County, California, we hired somebody in Boise, but she could live anywhere. She's showing up on my here in Orange County on one survey, and she's showing up in Boise and the other, so you just you need to look at both the sample size on where the company's located is higher and better and the unemployment number at the Metro levels more volatile. So you got to look at a trend over time and not just overreact to a month or two.   Michael: That's super interesting. Okay, and great to know, too. So, the last question I have for you both, and I think I already know the answer. But for everyone listening, I'm gonna ask on their behalf and your guys' opinions, have there been asset classes that have become more valuable and less valuable as a result of the pandemic and if so, what, in your opinion, are they?   John: You can handle crypto, Gary. I am not going to touch that one.   Gary: Why don't you start then?   John: As I as I said earlier, I think new technology which was not around prior to 2012, has allowed the single family rental business to just blossom permanently And it's, it's now gonna be a permanent part of people's portfolio passively investing in real estate And that has already pushed up prices more than it would have been going forward. Whatever price appreciation would have been otherwise, it'll probably push it up a little bit more. The only thing you have to concern to certain yourself where there is, you know, the government doesn't like that And they tend to be pro homeownership. So you gotta watch regulation. I am seeing a lot of our clients tend to avoid California because they're afraid of rent control. So and there was just a Bloomberg article that 12 Different states have had rent control proposed because of all of this. So you just got to keep your antenna up on on that side. But the rent control is being proposed seems to be more reasonable. It's at the rate of inflation or maybe 1% higher than that, that you can raise rents. It's not, you know, zero or something ridiculous.   Michael: Okay and what in your opinion has been devalued or become less valuable, if anything?   John: Um, I can't think of anything that's become a …Cash!   Gary: It's it makes sense, right? I mean, you're you're losing. I mean, John, John mentioned, if you're literally if you have money sitting in your checking account, right now it's point 001% and we've got 678 percent inflation, that's how much you're losing by sitting in cash and so that does create a risk incentive to put it somewhere. And you know, I would say, Michael, I mentioned this earlier, but I think housing and industrial, which is driven a lot by distribution for E commerce, a lot of those have been really darlings of, of, for investors, they've become very much in favor and I do think you're still seeing some challenges with in some questions about office space demand and you know, not that there aren't always office investors, and there are always going to be people in offices, but there's probably structurally some percentage of less space that companies are going to utilize and so that puts maybe some uncertainty into the minds of investors, if there's another I think, I think a lens people investors are looking at today is okay, there's going to be another pandemic someday, what are the likely implications of this and, you know, office, retail, traditional retail was hurt by the pandemic, but it was also being crushed just by Amazon, right, and so you, so that's, I think, got its own challenges. And then hospitalities is very cyclical anyway, if people stopped traveling, you know, they didn't travel for a while.   So those those I think are, you know, maybe a little slightly more challenged than housing, which is, which has proven to be much more resilient than, than I think most people thought and, as a consequence, you have a lot of a lot of investors, not just, you know, traditional or not just individual investors or institutions from here. But yet people from all over the world saying, well, US housing looks pretty interesting, relative to other places that they could invest.   Michael: Yeah.   John: There's something we take for granted here called Title laws that don't exist in other countries. I mean, people in other countries don't want to buy real estate there, because the government could take it away from them. You know, and I hear that from foreign investors. That's one of the things that they love about investing in America.   Michael: Pretty scary notion if you had to be overseas   John: …Or get I should have mentioned everything that Gary said to I mean, there's a lot of huge funds, pension funds, who like to put a percentage of their assets a 10% in real estate all the time, and it would traditionally go into retail and office and hotel. Do you think they're ever going to go back to the same percentage of retail hotel and office? Probably not, it's going to be far more in this business. Because retail is now industrial. I mean, it's a warehouse and in line, you know, the best retail centers are all going to be fine in the best locations, but they're in line space is dead. So, so you're right, that's gonna push more money into our business.   Michael: Okay, well, guys, this was super informative. I know I had a lot of fun. Hopefully our listeners did, too. If people want to learn a little bit more about each of you, where's the best place for them to do that?   John: Oh, we've got a website https://www.realestateconsulting.com/ I post pretty regularly on LinkedIn. So you can look up John Burns on LinkedIn and get some free stuff every day.   Gary: I love the free hoodie that you got right there, Michael. John, I know you've got a Roofstock hoodie as well. I don't know if you ever wear it.   John: I do, I should have bought it today, I'm sorry about that I should.       Gary: So yeah, I think I would just encourage people, if they want to learn more about what we're doing at Roofstock just come to https://www.roofstock.com/ you could also follow me or hit me up on LinkedIn, I post pretty regularly there as well. But yeah, and keep checking out the podcast I know Michael's been doing a great job along with Pierre and the rest of the team here trying to get they couldn't get any interesting guests this this time so they got John and me but I know they've been otherwise doing getting some pretty interesting folks and doing a great job.   John: Well I saw that you're then the one of the top 1% of podcasters in the world. Hopefully we didn't push it down to 2%.   Michael: A filler episode though this this was great you guys. Thank you so much for taking the time and I very much looking forward to chatting again as we continue along this crazy trajectory that we're on.   Alright, everyone that was our episode, a big thank you to John and Gary for taking the time out of their extremely busy schedules to hang out with me and chat about what's been going on in the real estate market and where we might be headed going forward. As always, if you liked the episode, feel free to leave us a rating or review wherever it is you get your podcast, and we look forward to seeing on the next one. Happy investing…

Summary: For the 10th and final episode of Propcast season 8, Louisa is joined by Greg Smithies, Partner and Co-Head of Climate Tech at Fifth Wall and Jonathan Schulhof, co-founder and CEO of FootPrint Coalition Ventures. They talk through their roles and what their funds are doing within the climate and sustainable technology space. They explain the growth and trends that they have seen in the market at the macro and micro level. Finally, they speak about what the future looks like and what we can personally do to reduce our carbon footprint. The key insight from this episode is the simplest thing you can do for the planet is to switch your thermostat down.  Resources: LMRE Global Recruitment and Search Consultancy LMRE YouTube Interviews Companies Mentioned:   Battery Ventures Coldwatt, acquired by Flextronics  Kleiner Perkins GE Conoco Turntide Motors Carbon Cure  Sidewalk Labs  Zero Acre Sealed     Shout Outs: Rob Soni, Executive Chairman, Founder, CEO & Investor Krishna Srinivasan, Founding Partner at LiveOak Venture Partners, Chairman of the Board at DISCO, Chairman of the Board at The Miracle Foundation Stephen M. Ross, Owner of The Related Companies Jeff Blau, CEO at Related Companies  Harvey Spievak, Executive Chairman and Managing Partner, Equinox Group Robert Downey Jr. Key Insights From This Episode:    Looking at climate tech today, the vast majority of them require some level of industrial tech. - Greg     The technologies we're investing in on the climate side are good for the planet, cheaper for the consumer and have higher returns. - Greg We might be in the golden age of climate and impact investing. - Greg We've had a washout of cleantech, 1.0 companies that weren't sustainable without subsidy. - John It is a travesty for the planet that for the last 20 years, the world's best and brightest went through, and spent all of their time doing ad click-through optimization. - Greg When you look at a problem that no one's looked at in the last 200 years, you can come up with some solutions that are cheaper, better and faster. - Greg  People are really looking and examining the food supply and thinking about how we can scale in a way that's compatible with the planet. - John 70% of the world's natural gas is burnt inside buildings for either powering them or heating them. - Greg Keywords: Climate Tech, Sustainable Tech, Future, Climate Change, Sustainability  About Our Guests: Greg Smithies, Partner and Co-Head of Climate Tech at Fifth Wall. Greg is a Partner at Fifth Wall, where he co-leads the Climate Technology Investment team. Prior to joining Fifth Wall, Greg was a Partner at BMW i Ventures where he led the Sustainability investing practice, investing in companies such as Prometheus Fuels, and PureCycle (NASDAQ: ROCH). Before joining BMW i Ventures, Greg led Finance & Operations for both The Boring Company and Neuralink simultaneously. Greg started his investment career at Battery Ventures where he covered early-stage enterprise technology startups, as well as industrial technology buyouts. Successful exits from his work there include Nutanix (NASDAQ: NTNX), AppDynamics (acquired by Cisco Systems, Inc.), and IST (acquired by Scott Brand). Greg was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and currently lives in Oakland, CA. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School where he received a BS in Economics and a BS in Computer Science. Founded in 2016, Fifth Wall, a Certified B Corporation, is the largest venture capital firm focused on technology-driven innovation for the global real estate industry. With approximately $3.0 billion in commitments and capital under management, Fifth Wall connects many of the world's largest owners and operators of real estate with the entrepreneurs who are redefining the future of the Built World. Fifth Wall is backed by a global mix of more than 90 strategic investors from more than 15 countries. Jonathan Schulhof is co-founder and CEO of FootPrint Coalition Ventures, a digital publishing and venture firm he started in partnership with Robert Downey Jr., to back environmentally focused sustainable technologies. FootPrint is a cross-platform digital publisher that features sustainable technology in news and short form video content for social media, and long-form series for streaming networks. FootPrint uses its publishing activity to originate and add value to investments in high growth companies. FootPrint then makes these investments accessible to investors that want to join in our movement through funds and through co-investment syndicates. We invest in areas such as alternative proteins, biodegradable plastics, electric vehicle motors, and energy storage.   Jon has over 20 years of experience investing in clean technology startups.  He was a founder and lead investor in Motivate, which owned and operated Citibike and the other leading North American bike sharing systems (sold to Lyft).  He started Loom Media to finance the rollout of free public electric vehicle charging systems, and other smart city amenities sponsored by corporate media (now part of WPP).  Earlier in his career, Jon created ColdWatt, a high efficiency power 81 Piccadilly, Mayfair, London W1J 8HY electronics company (sold to Flextronics); and Glori Energy, a microbially enhanced oil recovery business (IPO).  In addition to his cleantech work, Jon serves as non-executive chairman of GTI Capital Group, a permanent capital investor in India.  Jon started this company while living in New Delhi from 2010 through 2012.  GTI's holdings include Air Works (aviation maintenance), Samhi (hotels), and WebEngage (B2B SaaS tools for ecommerce).  GTI has several prior exits including Brattle Foods (refrigerated logistics, sold to Future Group), National Stock Exchange (sold through secondary trades), Sandhar (autoparts, IPO), and Nova Medical Centers (healthcare services, sold to Apollo).  Jon was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served on the Board of Northside Center for Early Childhood Development for 10 years.  He is now a mentor at iMentor.  Jon holds a law degree from Stanford, and attended Dartmouth College. About Our Host Louisa Dickins https://www.linkedin.com/in/louisa-dickins-ab065392/ Louisa started her career in property working at a well-known estate agency in London. Realising her people skills, she moved over to Lloyd May to pursue a career in recruitment. She now is a Director at LMRE, who are a specialist recruitment firm driven by PropTech and recruitment professionals, and Louisa oversees their 5 core areas. Louisa co-founded LMRE and provides a constructive recruitment platform to the new disruptors in real estate. Louisa is also on the board of Directors at UK PropTech Association (UKPA). About LMRE www.lmre.tech LMRE believe there is a better way to recruit. LMRE focus on a more comprehensive, client led focus delivering exceptional talent to the place at the time. They are passionate about the industry and passionate about people's careers. LMRE spend time with each client to become and an extension of the business, and their transparency and core values help them grow with the sector. LMRE simplify recruitment and innovate with our clients and evolve the people driven, PropTech community. Timestamps: [02:05] Greg, can you talk us through your journey?  Currently, I co-head the climate investment team at Fifth Wall.  I set up and founded the climate investing team for BMW.  Prior to BMW, I was an Elon Musk world for a number of years. I was head of finance and operations at two of his companies.  I started my investing career at a fund called Battery Ventures. [06:10] John, can you talk us through your journey?  I didn't set out to be a climate tech investor. I have a law degree from Stanford.  I started several companies that were venture-backed, the first was Coldwatt.  I started my first asset management company as an investor in India and set up a permanent capital vehicle for investing.  I partnered with Stephen M. Ross, Jeff Blau and Harvey Spievak and we turned around Citi Bike.   Finally, I set up Footprint Coalition with Robert Downey Jr.  [14:20] Greg, can you talk us through impact investing and how it's going affect our built environment?  Impact investing has historically gotten little bit of a negative connotation to it because in the capital markets people have always said there's real investing and then there is impact investing. A lot of these technologies that people used to think were expensive are now incredibly cheap. [16:50] John, in your 20 years, what major changes have you seen?  We've had a wash out of clean tech, 1.0 companies that weren't sustainable without subsidy. Technology is accelerating, the world looks nothing today, like it did 15 years ago. The talent that has followed the capital that is flooding into this market is truly amazing. [22:30] With technologies such as Carbon Cure and cross-laminated timber, it is expensive for buildings to put into practice and will the cost of these building be higher?  This technology is safer because these things are lighter and they're easier to transport. You need smaller foundations for the buildings and they naturally are able to band with the wind and high-rise buildings.  It's cheaper, it's better for the planets, your buildings go up faster and they weigh less.  We've got to climb up a little bit of a mountain when it comes to training engineers and getting permitting done. [24:50] John, you have experience in alternative proteins, can you expand on that and give an example of a technology in that space?  People are really looking and examining the food supply and thinking about how we can scale in a way that's compatible with the planet. We look for investments in areas where through alternative methods of production, we can create more denser sources of the very things that we need to eat and that are healthier and just better alternatives. Zero Acre Farms ferment in this case, vegetable oil and if you're able to do that you have a much more energy dense way of producing that food without having to go and cut palm forest.  [28:00] Is there something our audience could be looking in to play their part in the future of the built environment?  The simplest thing you can do, inside buildings is turning your thermostat down. What we need is to allow people to voice their opinions and give CEOs and the people who make policy decisions, the power and the space to change how they do business. [30:55] The ‘LMRE' part, Louisa asks the guests to talk about;  Lessons learned in your career Greg:  Catch me if you Can and Inventing Anna, these people were to do outstanding things because they had the moxie and the guts to try.  Greg: You fail at a 100% of the things, you don't try. John:  Never underestimate the power of human incentives. Mention a person, product or service Greg: Sealed.com John: My wife Rewarding parts of working in the space: Greg: When you work on anything in climate tech it is quite rewarding inherently because the, technologies you're working on are here to try and save the world. John: I love the community feedback.    What are you most Excited about for the future of the space?: John: I drove a 1968 Volkswagen bus and this one was kitted with a salvaged Tesla engine. Sponsors  Launch Your Own Podcast Kopus.com is the leading podcast production and strategic content company for brands, organisations, institutions, individuals, and entrepreneurs. Our team sets you up with the right strategy, equipment, training, and guidance and content to ensure you sound amazing while speaking to your niche audience and networking with your perfect clients. Get in touch jason@kopus.com

Are you willing to take risks for your happiness?   This week's guest Dr. John Temple was brave enough to do just that. A successful orthopedic surgeon with a booming career, Dr. John just wasn't happy. But instead of staying miserable, he made the difficult decision to leave.    Today, Dr. John is happier than ever and has stepped into his entrepreneurial shoes, creating courses and writing books. According to him, he'll never look back. He is now the boss of his own life.    Dr. John Temple is a living example that you are never too old to reinvent your life. I know he'll motivate you to take your own calculated risks for your happiness.    Key Topics/Takeaways:    Dr. John's personal story + the unknown struggles of becoming a physician.  How Dr. John connected with his entrepreneurial spirit & built enough revenue to quit his job at the hospital. Gaining entrepreneurial courage. Celebrating your wins. The shadow side of being a doctor. Will the culture of medicine ever change? How COVID-19 affected physician morale & how it might change the medical atmosphere. Dr. John's advice to people who might want to risk it all and leave their career.    Where to Find the Guest:   Dr.AnaMaria.com   Memorable Quotes:   “I'm happiest when I'm building something. That's kind of what I've come to realize. That it's not once it's built, it's not the destination, I just want to be building, that's when I'm happiest.” (8:25, Dr. John)   “There are now many more female medical students than male medical students. And I do think that women will help bring a different atmosphere to medicine in a good way.” (14:25, Dr. John)   “That's what this podcast is all about. I think we deserve to lead a satisfying, happy life that's personal to each person.” (16:13, Dr. Sarah)   “My number one piece of advice is to seek support.” (18:19, Dr. John)   “It doesn't matter how old we are, but we can always choose to recreate or reinvent ourselves.” (21:09, Dr. Sarah)   Join the Are You Satisfied? Patreon Community: https://www.patreon.com/areyousatisfied?fan_landing=true

In this Part 2 of my show with John Mauldin, we range far and wide peering into an optimistic future for humanity.  Near term, things look pretty bleak, but when you step back and look at the innovations and technologies that will end up enhancing and prolonging human life, the future holds a lot of promise. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the past 50 years. Some excerpts:  We're living in a financial bubble and a massive bubble of government promises that can never be fulfilled.  “I see a reset ahead when these bubbles burst, and it will be a tough adjustment,” explains John “It's not riding the tiger that's the problem, it's the dismount.”  “My job as an investment manager, as an economic thinker and writer, is to help my clients get through to the other side. What can you do?  There are things that we can do and great companies that are still going to thriving on the other side of the great reset.” There's a lot to be excited about and we can count on entrepreneurs, human ingenuity and technological innovation to create solutions. "There's a 95% chance that a 25 year old today will live to be 150 years old." Matt Ridley's notion that ideas have sex, creating ever more ideas. With China's demographic crisis and Xi shutting down its markets and entrepreneurs, it's possible that we look back 10 years from now and say, that kind of looks like Japan.  The next decade will be the decade of biotechnological transformation.  Gerontology research into something called induced tissue regeneration could be the “fountain of middle age.” Why promising companies no longer want to go public, how this hurts the average investor and what we should do about it. And rule one: don't invest in something you do not understand. There's a reason John's newsletter Thoughts From the Frontline has over a million subscribers. He's truly ahead of curve. Listen in for his many intriguing speculations about our future.