Speaking of labour, much has been said recently about the difference in work culture between Europe and the US.
Nicolai Tangen, boss of Norwayâs titanic oil fund, recently told the Financial Times that Americans just work harder.
It is a factual statement. The average American works 1,811 hours per year, compared to approximately 1,500 hours across Northern Europe.
The Americans also make more money. Salaries are higher and workers are more productive.
As an economy develops and productivity increases, people can either maintain the same work hours and become wealthier, or work fewer hours for the same income.
The US clearly chose the former option, while Europe chose the latter.
But what is actually better?
Various indicators such as life expectancy, sustainability, health, and happiness suggest that Europe, particularly Northern Europe, is an ideal model to emulate.
I would add that itâs easy to choose to work shorter hours when you sit on a $1.6tn public fund, like itâs the case of Norway. The other Nordics share a similar situation with very small population and few huge profitable companies, like Novo Nordisk in Denmark.
Switzerland is also in a similar position, with many Swiss (maybe the majority?) choosing to work part-time, because why not.
But for all other Europeans the story is different.
You might be enticed by the Italian "Dolce Vita," lured by the promise of a great life with relatively small money. Spoiler alert, âLa Dolce Vitaâ is not cheap and youâll end up in broken dreams and misery.
The reality is, in todayâs economy, the developed world must continue to work hard, not for improving its quality of life, but simply to maintain it.
However, the American model is also not the best example.
On average, Americans live to 77.5, while Spaniards to 83, despite being poorer. According to the Financial Times, only 30% of Americans are truly engaged with their work and willing to put in extra hours. 20% are just miserable, and the remaining 50% merely show up. Therefore, only a fraction of Americans work harder and earn more than the average European. In contrast, we all tend to work and earn roughly the same.
Familiar with FOMO? Meet FOPO, the Fear of People's Opinion.
A PGA professional, a local teaching pro, and an amateur compete on a golf course in front of an audience and cameras.
As expected, the PGA professional performs well.
The amateur golfer thrives on the excitement for the unusual challenge.
However, the teaching pro unexpectedly underperforms due to anxiety.
Why?
He was used to being âthe expertâ. Now his identity is threatened by the obvious superior skills of the PGA pro and the amateur's unexpectedly good performance.
He fears judgment from the audience and the other players, causing him to enter survival mode, limiting his potential.
Survival mode is when we focus our energy on surviving instead of thriving.
In the workplace, we enter survival mode when we just do what weâre told without contributing with new ideas or speaking up proactively.
Junior employees, like the amateur, have little to lose and are excited to share their opinion. Executives, like the PGA pro, already know how to handle pressure and office politics.
On the other hand, senior employees starting to climb the ladder can struggle, just like the teaching pro.
Good managers combat FOPO, by creating a shield around their senior employees and by fostering a purpose-driven culture.
Purpose-based teams, unlike performance-based ones, go beyond mere metrics and strict tasks.
Employees driven by a clear purpose aren't afraid to speak up or try new ideas because they aren't intimidated by the occasional performance dips.
They overcome survival mode and start thriving.
They are more engaged and proactive, ultimately delivering more value.
The US is concerned that the Chinese government might access American users' data for intelligence purposes.
TikTok had already worked on a billion-dollar project to isolate American data, but it wasnât enough to satisfy US regulators.
Whatâs happening
The US House of Representatives recently passed a bill to ban the app unless it's sold to a non-Chinese entity.
However, before it becomes law, it must be approved by the Senate and President Joe Biden. If that happens, TikTok will have 6 months to divest.
My take
The primary concern of the US regarding TikTok isn't about data privacy. In fact, there's no evidence that the Chinese government has used the app's data for intelligence or military purposes.
Plus, the vast majority of smartphones are either iPhones or run Android, both developed by American companies. It shouldnât be too difficult to prevent TikTok from gathering certain types of data.
The main concern is the algorithm.
TikTok can influence what people see on its platform.
With its vast reach in America (170m users), it can steer public opinion on crucial geopolitical issues, such as the conflict in Palestine.
Worse still, it can foster extremism.
It's a proven fact that social media and their echo chambers contribute to the development of more extreme ideas.
Extremism is the enemy of democracy, the foundation of western society. Which in turn is the âenemyâ of totalitarian societies like Chinaâs.
Not by chance Trump has recently come out against the ban, despite his earlier opposition to the app while he was president.
The Gstaad Guy is a masterpiece of influencer marketing and branding.
Hereâs why:
With "only" around 800k followers on Instagram and TikTok, the Gstaad Guy has developed two distinct online personas.
First, there's Constance, a 30-something bastion of old money, living between high-society London and the luxurious ski-resort town of Gstaad in Switzerland. To quote him, âif you know how to pronounce Gstaad, you knowâ.
Then, there's Constance's American cousin, Colton, a Gen Z new-money obsessed with street fashion and matcha, splitting his time between LA and New York.
Both are parodies of real characters you might encounter in the private members clubs of Marylebone or at NYC fashion shows.
Although the Gstaad Guy has kept his true identity a secret, Constance and Colton have become influencers in their own right.
Constance has launched his own rosĂŠ wine brand, Palais Constance, which is served in upscale clubs and restaurants. He is officially dressed by Loro Piana and Audemars Piguet and has sunglasses collaborations with the Swedish brand CHIMI. Meanwhile, Colton has established himself as a Gen Z street-fashion icon.
People even text Constance for tips on where to eat in London, as if he were a real person.
The Gstaad Guy achieved the impossible task of representing, and likely becoming, the very individuals he mocks. Forbes reports that the rich love him and make up a significant portion of his relatively small following.
Thanks to his double life, the Gstaad Guy can appeal to different audiences and expand the range of brands for potential collaborations.
While Constance and Colton look antithetical, the brilliance lies in the fact that they actually represent two sides of the same coin. The contrast between old money and new, tradition and hype, encapsulates the essence of modern luxury.
Itâs one the most successful European tech companies, founded and based in London with no plans to move to Silicon Valley.
Itâs a very private company with no plans to go public. 75% is owned by porn-billionaire Leonid Radvinsky (more on him later), with the rest owned by founder Tim Stokely, his father Guy and brother Thomas.
Founded in 2016, it has gone through spectacular growth since the pandemic. With almost 239m âfansâ in 2022, it has tripled since 2020 and 18x since 2019.
Itâs also doing very well financially, generating $5.55bn gross revenue in 2022, of which it takes a 20% cut. Revenue before taxes in 2022 was $525m, up 22% YoY and almost 9x vs 2020. Its owner reportedly took home dividends of $338m in 2023, the equivalent of $1.3m per working day. No wonder they donât want to go public!
OnlyFans is trying to diversify from its core adult-content business by branching into non-adult streaming with OnlyFansTV and recruiting more non-adult celebrities.
The new CEO, Keily Blair, is a former lawyer specializing in cyber and data privacy. She has 15+ years of experience working with renowned law firms in London. Fan fact, she was recently denied the ability to open a bank account due to her association with the company.
She doesnât like the word âpornâ. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, she clarified that while OnlyFans is "open" to adult content, it doesn't necessarily represent its main offering. However, she explained they do not report on content category, hence they cannot determine the proportion of creators who do not produce any adult content. "Creators' performance is not an important metric." It's hard to believe, given that their entire business model relies on commissions from creators' revenue!
In the same interview, she states that they encourage all employees, including herself, to open an OnlyFans account and follow creators. She particularly likes Becky Goodwin and Whitney Cummings. This seems to be part of an effort to normalise the use of OnlyFans.
She also emphasises the strength of their monetisation strategy, which increasingly focuses on micro-transactions such as tips and "unlock content", rather than recurring subscriptions. This approach gives users more financial control. She notes that she herself has many subscriptions, for which she "probably watches three shows and yet still pays for the entire membership".
My take
OnlyFans is clearly a porn website.
Even the other categories available on the site, including OnlyFansTV, often serve just as a funnel to more expensive adult content.
The founder, Tim Stokely, was named "The king of homemade porn" by the Sunday Times, a reference to his other porn ventures like Customs4U. The current primary owner, Leonid Radvinsky, has a shady history with dubious adult websites dating back to the late 90s and early 2000s. Do you recall the endless chain of spammy links that ultimately led to porn sites? That was him. In fact, when he invested in OnlyFans in 2018, he pushed for a greater focus on adult content.
The monetisation model is highly profitable, but it is also evil.
Actress Bella Thorne earned $1m on her first day after signing up by promising to send nudes to her fans for $200. However, she ended up sending a photo in lingerie instead of ânudesâ.
Many creators follow a similar strategy, enticing users with the promise of increasingly provocative content that often never materialises. It's a vicious cycle reminiscent of gambling, where people keep playing in the hope of winning big and recouping their losses, an outcome that almost never occurs.
OnlyFans is growing up, from a 90s-style scammy site to an adult big tech that drains its users, not of their personal data but directly of their money.
Not sure what is worse.
â
Tim Stokely, founder of OnlyFans, was named "king of homemade porn" by The Sunday Times.
Two decades ago, young men and women generally shared similar world views. Now, there is a significant divide, with men tending towards conservative positions and women towards liberal ones.
The gap is widening at a worrying speed, as evidenced by herds of angry young men around the world. In South Korea, for example, nearly 80% of men in their 20s say they are discriminated against, leading to the election of an overtly anti-feminist president in 2022.
Political polarisation and extreme positions can be dangerous, as they may lead to violence and totalitarianism.
There are underlying issues that contribute to cause this divide.
Women tend to be more educated than men, with 46% of them holding a tertiary degree vs 35% of their men counterparts in the EU in 2022. In general, better education generates more liberal ideas and vice versa.
Men in the rich world tend to struggle at school, start working earlier and retire later than women, while dying younger. Therefore, better working conditions for women are sometimes seen as unfair.
However, neither the media nor politics aim to address these issues, instead they pour gas on the fire.
Mainstream media has leant âleftâ (far from the left I grew up with and still support), engaging in a daily bombing campaign against âtoxic masculinityâ and supporting a deranged politically-correct rhetoric. Both women and men avidly read these news, further solidifying their extreme positions, becoming more feminist on one hand and angrier on the other. And this is very good for business!
Meanwhile, the real world has gone in the complete opposite direction.
Right-wing and extreme-right-wing parties have massively grown in popularity in recent years. Some are even led by a woman, like Giorgia Meloni in Italy or Marine Le Pen in France. Hard to believe these parties were voted only by men.
Characters like Donald Trump urge angry men (and women) to take the âred pillâ, feeding them with lies and conspiracy theories.
Both sides benefit from and capitalise on the situation.
People with moderate views, who are probably the majority, are left out of the equation.
Being a moderate young(ish) men today is harder than before, as he's frequently scrutinised and doubted. But the irony is that being a young women today is also harder than before!
Today's women often face immense pressure to meet expectations associated with their acquired rights. For instance, they are expected to have a successful career, which is challenging in itself, regardless of gender, while also having children, possibly at least 2.1 to support demographic needs. They are encouraged to freely express their sexuality, yet expected to establish a stable family, likely with a men who is less educated than them, see previous point.
This contradictory message harms our youth.
It leaves them in confusion due to a lack of clear role models. Increasingly, they are dropping out of school and struggling with commitment, while the level of violence rises.
Maybe itâs time to reassess?
â
Men and women's political views are drifting apart.
â
The US is the country with the larger gap between men and women.
â
Do men and women agree with the statement "feminism has gone too far"?
â
Women are generally more educated than men, with 46% of them holding a tertiary degree in the EU in 2022.
Summer 2020: Epic Games introduces a direct payment system in its popular game, Fortnite, on iOS and Android, to bypass Appleâs and Googleâs 30% cut on in-app purchases.
August 13, 2020: In response, Apple and Google remove Fortnite from the App Store and Play Store.
August 13, 2020: Epic Games files lawsuits against Apple and Google, accusing them of anti-competitive practices and monopolistic behaviour.
August 17, 2020: Epic Games launches the #FreeFortnite campaign, parodying Apple's famous "1984" advertisement.
May 3, 2021: The trial between Epic Games and Apple begins.
September 10, 2021: The judge issues her ruling. Epic loses the case as Apple is not a monopolist, and its 30% commission rate is lawful. Fortnite will remain out of the App Store. However, the ruling also mandates that Apple must allow developers to direct users to external payment methods.
November 2023: The trial between Epic Games and Google begins.
December 2023: Epics Games wins against Google; the search giant runs an illegal monopoly with the Play store. However, itâs still unclear what Epic Games exactly won (Epic never sued for monetary damages); the parties are still discussing. But one thing is certain, this victory will pave the way for increased freedom on the Play Store and Android.
February 16, 2024: The EU introduces its Digital Markets Act (DMA), which was effectively enforced on March 6th. Under this act, Epic Games plans to develop the Epic Games Store as an alternative app marketplace on iOS within the EU. This store will feature third-party apps, Fortnite, and other mobile games owned and affiliated with Epic. It's expected to resemble its existing desktop counterpart, charging a 12% commission to third-party apps. Epic Games applies for and obtains an Apple Developer Program account, needed to build native apps for iOS.
February 23, 2024: In a long email, Apple asks Epic Games for written assurance that, this time, they will âact in good faithâ and will honour Appleâs terms of service.
February 23, 2024: Tim Sweeney, Epicâs CEO, personally responds to Apple with a brief statement. â[We are] acting in good faith and will comply with all terms of current and future agreements with Appleâ.
March 8, 2024: Following an inquiry from the EU, Apple reinstates Epicâs developer account.
On the one hand, Apple owns the hardware (the iPhone) and it should be free to manage it how itâs best for the business. Additionally, by maintaining tight control over iOS and the App Store, they can guarantee cyber safety and user privacy.
On the other hand, it's evident they're abusing their dominant position. They ban apps at their discretion, disallow advertising of external payment flows, and prohibit third-party stores.
At the same time, Epic Games is also a leader in its market. Ultimately, their objective is to circumvent Apple's 30% commission to boost their profit margin, not to make the world a better place.
This story isn't only about a legal battle. It uncovers awkward details on how Apple and Google operates in the app market.
Why did Google lose its legal battle against Epic Games while Apple won, even though they were sued for essentially the same reason?
Several factors contribute, but fundamentally, it's due to the market definitions used by the judges in the trials. For Apple, the market was defined as "digital mobile gaming transactions," where Apple isn't a monopolist and faces competition from companies like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, who also charge similar commissions on their stores. For Google, the market was defined as "Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services," where Google is the clear monopolist. Bear in mind that Android is an open-source platform.
Some uncomfortable details emerged from the trials.
Google has been making sweetheart deals with the largest apps on its store, notably Spotify and Netflix. Reports indicate that Spotify was permitted to pay 0% fees on the Play Store when using its own payment system, or only 4% (as opposed to the standard 15%) when using Google's payment system.
Netflix was offered a similar deal, but refused and kept subscription payments only available on the web version.
It seems that Google has made great efforts to conceal the details of these deals, even deleting some Google Chat messages from their records. This suggests that more revealing details may have been uncovered otherwise!
Apple reportedly followed this practice as well, offering special treatment to Netflix.
The truth is, without clear regulations and enforcement, big tech companies will continue to employ discriminatory and unfair practices.
Some might argue that as private enterprises, they should be free to conduct business as they wished. However, given their size, the consequences of their actions extend far beyond their target markets. In fact, big tech also serve as strategic, intelligence, and military assets for the governments where they're based, playing a crucial role in global affairs and ultimately on our lives.
It may be time to reconsider the extent of power that a private enterprise can wield.
The âŹ1.8bn fine was triggered by a formal complaint raised by Spotify against Apple Music in 2019.
The Background
Investigations into Apple's anti-competitive behaviour in the EU have been ongoing for years.
The App Store on iOS takes a 30% cut from all in-app payments and subscriptions for third-party apps, such as Spotify.
The issue is that Apple doesn't let third-party apps advertise alternative payment methods besides the Apple Store. Therefore, even if third-party apps wished to offer lower prices for users subscribing directly and not through the app store, they are unable to do so.
This creates a problem of transparency towards the end user and is seen as an abuse of dominant position.
The Trigger
As if that wasn't enough, Apple began launching its own apps, directly competing with some of the most popular ones on the store. For instance, Apple Music was launched to rival Spotify, and Apple TV to compete with Netflix.
It goes without saying that Apple Music doesn't pay the 30% cut, which allows them to potentially offer lower subscription prices.
Spotify was not the only one to be upset by Apple's practices. Meta was also among the âvictimsâ.
You may recall the story of Apple's Tracking Transparency in 2022:
Apple provided its users with the option to opt out of tracking by third-party apps, which is essential for effective ad sales for companies like Meta.
Problem is, Apple's own apps don't provide the same option, and users can still be targeted by personalised advertising sold directly by Apple through its Apple Search Ads service. Once again, this was seen as anti-competitive behaviour.
The Future
âDaniel Ek, CEO and founder of Spotify, published a video on Linkedin yesterday saying heâs happy about the EUâs decision but heâs still skeptical about whether the fine will actually change Appleâs behaviour.
He believes that Apple will just ignore the ruling. Maybe they will apply some small changes here and there, but will not fundamentally change the way they operate. He mentions how similar fines Apple received in other countries like South Korea or The Netherlands also didnât achieve their ultimate objective.
The Underlying Problem
There is a fundamental problem over the openness of the internet.
Todayâs internet is practically owned and operated by a handful of American tech behemoths. Ai doesnât seem to be solving this problem. In fact, it looks quite the opposite.
Last week, Universal Music Publishing Group released a statement on their Instagram account.
The background
Universal Music Group and TikTok clashed over royalty payments for songs affiliated with the music label and played on the social media platform.
Negotiations failed because TikTok reportedly wanted to pay only a low-single digit percentage of advertising revenue, in contrast to the 20% that YouTube, for example, pays to Universal.
Therefore, Universal withdrew their license, forcing TikTok to stop playing its music catalogue, which includes artists like Taylor Swift and Drake.
The Impact
Over the past few weeks, TikTok has muted all recordings owned by Universal. But it didnât stop there. It also muted songs written or co-written by artists affiliated with the major.
Some analysts predict that 60-80% of all the popular music on TikTok will be muted, although the Chinese giant claims the figure is closer to 30%. Still, itâs a huge deal, impacting at least one-third of all songs played on TikTok.
The Future
Reality is, TikTok can live without mainstream hit songs.
Why?
Because regular users can now create catchy tunes using AI. In fact, TikTok plans to pay an advertising cut to AI-music creators as well.
AI-generated music is perfectly suited for accompanying TikTok videos. In fact, it may even perform better as it can be tailored specifically for this purpose. In near the future, we may have tools to create music directly from existing videos.
Like every industry, the music industry is also being disrupted by AI. The only way to survive is by improving the quality of its output. The formula for mass-produced summer hits wonât work anymore, at least from a streaming point of view.
Instead, TikTok should be used as a marketing tool by labels and artists to generate revenue elsewhere, such as live shows. Taylor Swift demonstrated this model with her Eras Tour.
As a marketing professional myself I know that marketing is a cost center, not a profit one, at least not directly. Therefore, I donât see how music companies can expect significant revenue from a marketing too like TikTok.
